MOHAN SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad, whereby reference has been answered against the workman/petitioner and he has not been held entitled to any relief. Further challenge is to the order carrying even date i.e. 30.11.2012 at Annexure P-5, in terms of which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') has been partly allowed.

(2.) Counsel would submit that the workman had been appointed as a Helper in the respondent-company w.e.f. 10.10.1999 and at the time of the appointment, no attendance card, ESI Card, PF Card etc. with regard to his service had been provided. However, such documents were later on provided in the month of June, 2000. It is contended that the management has resorted to unfair means just to show that the workman had been appointed at a later point of time i.e. in May, 2000. As such, it is argued that the findings recorded by the Labour Court as regards the petitioner/workman having not completed 240 days' of service in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination i.e. 19.12.2000 is perverse. It has also been argued that the Labour Court has not considered the aspect as regards the respondent-company having not maintained the attendance record for the initial period of employment of the workman i.e. from October, 1999 till May, 2000 and which would certainly fall within the ambit of the expression "unfair labour practice". Counsel further submits that the version of the petitioner/workman also stood corroborated by the deposition of the co-worker namely Radhey Shyam, who had been duly examined before the Labour Court and who was holding the post of Joint Secretary of the Worker's Union. Further argument raised is that a general demand notice dated 10.09.2000 (Annexure P-8) was pending consideration and adjudication and as such, the services of the petitioner/workman could not have been terminated without the respondent-company having taken prior permission as per mandate of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. It has also been argued that the petitioner/workman had moved a specific application before the Labour Court for summoning of the relevant record as regards service rendered w.e.f. 10.10.1999 onwards and upon failure on the part of the management to produce the relevant record it was incumbent for an adverse inference to have been drawn.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the case paper book has been perused.