HARJEET SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the award of the Labour Court, Patiala dated January 16, 1992 whereby the reference made to it at the instance of the petitioner - workman was decided against him on the ground that he had not completed 240 days of service preceding his termination.

(2.) The petitioner was working as an Octroi Clerk with the municipal committee Rajpura since 23.11.1984. He worked for about a year and half when his services were terminated on 10.9.1986. He was being appointed on temporary basis for 89 days only and the last appointment letter issued to him in this regard was on 15.7.1986 (Annexure P5 with the petition). This period of 89 days was to expire sometime in October, 1986 but his services were terminated by the Executive Officer on 10.9.1986 in compliance to the order passed by the Administrator. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) were not complied with. On a dispute raised by the petitioner the same was referred for adjudication to the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala. After recording evidence of the parties, the Labour Court relied upon a document Exhibit M7 (Annexure P9 with the writ petition) which shows the total period for which the workman had served the municipal committee. Both the parties admit the correctness of this document. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the workman had not put in 240 days of service immediately preceding 10.9.1986 the date on which his services were terminated. This finding, on the face of it, is not correct. A mere look at Annexure P9 shows that the workman had completed 265 days. It appears that the Labour Court did not apply its mind at all to the document and as to how he has calculated the number of working days of the workman is not understandable. The finding of the Labour Court is, thus, based on a misreading of this document which is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel appearing for the municipal committee could not advance any meaningful argument in support of the finding recorded by the Labour Court. It is, therefore, held that the petitioner - workman had completed more than 240 days of service before his services were terminated. It was consequently incumbent upon the Municipal Committee to have complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Not having done so, the termination was illegal and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned award of the Labour Court quashed and the municipal committee, Rajpura is directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner will have his costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/-.