PRINCIPAL SAINAIK SCHOOL, KUNJPURA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management has filed this intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 27.5.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.8272 of 2014), filed by the Management against the Award dated 10.2.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Panipat reinstating the respondent-workman with continuity of service and 50% back-wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 23.4.2008, was dismissed. Brief facts, leading to file the present appeal, are that the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute and served a demand notice dated 23.4.2008, that he was appointed as Sweeper on daily wages basis in the year 1991. He worked from the year 1991 to 24.12.2003 and thereafter from 4.3.2004 to 13.6.2007 continuously. He, thus, completed more than 240 days in a calendar year as required under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). However, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated by the appellant-Management on 22.10.2007 without giving any reason and following the procedure laid down under Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25- H of the Act. The respondent-workman served a demand notice dated 23.4.2008 upon the Management. A reference, as required under Section 10(1)(C) of the Act was made to the Labour Court. The appellantmanagement contested the claim of the respondent-workman on the ground that the workman had worked with the Management for seasonal and casual work as unskilled daily wager. He was paid daily wages as per the norms of the Management. Since the workman had worked as daily wager on need basis, no appointment letter was issued to him. The workman is not working with the Management since 17.5.2007. A case was registered against the respondent-workman i.e. FIR No.110 dated 13.6.2006 under Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376 and 511 IPC. There being a criminal case against the workman, it falls within the ambit of 'moral turpitude'. He himself had stopped coming for the casual work since 17.5.2007 and therefore, the question of termination or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour court framed the following issues on 27.8.2010 :-

(3.) The Management has produced the solitary witness MW1 namely Shri Rajeev Mittal and the Labour Court found the crossexamination of MW1 illusive and evasive and has noticed that the said witness was avoiding giving direct answers to a straight question. This witness had even gone to the extent to say that he does not know as to whether the workman had worked with the Management from 1991 to 17.5.2007 or his services were illegally terminated, retrenchment compensation was ever paid or any notice was served to the Management about his termination or not. He has further stated that the record, for the period during 1991 to 2006, was destroyed, but at the same time he had admitted that no permission regarding destruction of the record was ever taken from the Court and the record was destroyed as per the school rules (Mark-B).