DISTRICT FOOD AND SUPPLIES CONTROLLER, BHIWANI Vs. SANJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Food & Supplies Controller, Bhiwani representing the State of Haryana is before this Court assailing the award of the Labour Court dated 3rd May, 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman to service with immediate effect with consequential benefits of back wages. A finding has been returned that the respondent workman did not work during the intervening period counted from termination of service till the passing of the award and his appointment was on part-time basis. If the award is to be operated, the respondent would go back to his original status when his services were retrenched on 10th June, 2010 allegedly in violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G, 25-N and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent workman worked as a janitor with the petitioning department on part-time basis. The Labour Court rightly held that Section 25-N of the Act was not attracted to the case since the aforesaid provisions apply only to a factory, mine etc and the petitioner is a department of the Government. This is also the conceded case of the authorized representative of the workman before the labour court. However, a positive finding has been returned on the evidence on record and after appreciating it, that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were violated on account of lack of service of notice of one month or one month wages in lieu of notice nor any payment of any retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of service. In support of his claim, the respondent workman filed his affidavit by way of evidence on oath, his pleadings in the claim statement and in the replication and deposed accordingly in the witness box. He deposed that he was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar as a Janitor on 1st March, 1994 against a vacant and permanent post on a fixed salary and was paid the minimum wages prescribed. He claimed that though part-time, he worked for more than 5 hours a day. He worked continuously till 10th June, 2010 when his services were terminated abruptly in an illegal and arbitrary manner. At the time of termination, he was being paid Rs. 2065/- per month as salary. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was put to him that he had left the work on his own with effect from 31st March, 2010 which this suggestion was denied by him.

(2.) During the course of proceedings, the respondent workman made an application to the labour court praying for a direction to the petitioner to produce the record of attendance and payment of salary. The record was produced by an Inspector of the Department from where it was ascertained that the service rendered by the workman was continuous for 16 years.

(3.) In order to rebut the evidence of the petitioner and disprove his claim, the department examined Sameer Vasisth, Inspector as MW1, the person who had produced the record on the application for production of record. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit in deposing on the lines of the defence of the management. It was the department's case that with effect from 1st April, 2010, it had put in operation a scheme of employment of labourers, part-time sweepers (Janitors), Chowkidars through a policy of outsourcing.