SUBHASH CHAND Vs. LABOUR COURT, LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner feeling aggrieved of the award dated 6.2.2006, has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the aforesaid award and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The workman petitioner had been appointed as Helper with the respondents on April 3, 1981 on daily wage basis. The services of the workman were terminated in the year 1984 but he was reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages by the respondents on realising their mistake. However, he was again terminated on August 13, 1988. The industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court and that the respondents withdrew the order of termination and reinstated him on September 16, 1988 with continuity of service and back wages. Subsequently, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 1968 of 1988 before this Court for seeking regularisation of his services and that the petition was admitted on November 28, 1988 and the termination of the petitioner had been stayed till further orders. Despite this, the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties. The petition was contested by the respondents and a categoric stand had been taken that his services had been terminated on November 28, 1988 and that the only remedy is to seek reference of industrial dispute in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid fact, the petition was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated May 5, 1993 with liberty to approach the Labour Court accordingly.

(3.) The industrial dispute was raised by issuing demand notice on May 10, 1994. Conciliation proceedings failed and that the industrial dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The claim statement was filed by the petitioner, which was contested by the respondents by way of detailed written statement. However, the name of the employer had not been given correctly, the reference suffered from the technical snag, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on November 7, 1997, for seeking a fresh reference accordingly. A fresh demand notice dated November 21, 1997, was served and upon failure of the conciliation proceedings the industrial dispute was once again referred by the appropriate government vide order dated 27.11.1998. The claim statement was contested by way of detailed written statement. The averments contained therein were controverted by way of rejoinder. Upon the pleadings of the parties the issues had been framed. The management produced the evidence but the workman failed to produce any evidence despite availing three clear opportunities including last opportunity granted on February 6, 2006. Further adjournment was declined and that in the absence of the evidence, the claim having not been substantiated, the reference has been answered in favour of the management and against the workman. The award dated February 6, 2006, copy Annexure P7, has been made the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.