STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 16.5.2013 (Annexure P1), whereby the respondent No.2-workman has been given the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages from the date of his demand notice i.e. 29.4.2003. Perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the claim of respondent No.2-workman was that he was employed as Mali-cum- Chowkidar with the petitioner-department from 1.6.1995 on a permanent job at the rate of Rs. 1,350/- plus other allowances per month. His services were terminated with effect from 30.6.1996 by the petitioners without any notice, charge sheet, enquiry or compensation and his juniors continued to work. Accordingly, it was alleged that having worked for more than 240 days, the petitioners had not complied with Sections 25-F & 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act").

(2.) The defence of the petitioner-department was that claim of the respondent-workman was time barred and he was appointed on daily wages against muster roll and appointment was not as per Rules and he worked as Chowkidar under different schemes and worked only for 152 days and had not completed 240 days. The workman examined himself as WW.1, whereas Darshan Singh, Junior Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation, Sub Division No. 2, Fazilka was examined by the petitioner department as MW.1. The muster roll produced by the workman Ex.W.2 to Ex.W.22 was scrutinized by the Labour Court and the finding has been recorded that he was terminated on 30.6.1996 and he had completed 275 days in the calendar year. Reliance was placed upon the cross-examination of the Management witness, who had admitted that the workman had completed 240 days with the Management as he had worked in different areas as per the requirement. It was, accordingly, held that in view of the admission that new persons were engaged and the workman was not called for the job and no notice or compensation had been given, the termination was illegal, null and void and the workman had a right to challenge his termination.

(3.) The question of delay was answered by granting continuity of service with 30% back wages from the date of demand till joining of his duties and the impugned award was passed. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that there was a delay and he was only a daily wager and his reinstatement, at this stage, was not justified.