EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The department is in writ filed under Articles 226/227 assailing the award of the Labour Court made on Oct. 27, 2016. The Labour Court has accepted the claim and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and 50% of the back wages. It has also ordered that arrears of back wages if not paid within two months will carry interest @9% per annum. The relief granted by the Labour Court appears to me far too excessive for a Mate/Beldar in the Irrigation Department, for the brief period of service rendered from December 01, 1986 to Sept. 30, 1987.

(2.) Earlier, the workman had approached this Court by way of CWP No.7992 of 1987 claiming regularization in the halcyon days before the pronouncement of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others, AIR 1992 SC 2130 arising from a division bench order of this Court granting relief of regularization on completion of 240 days of service. In those proceedings one Sh. Lehna Singh, Junior Engineer under mistaken identity made statement before the High Court that the services of Mohinder Singh (the present respondent) have been regularized. The person who was regularized w.e.f. April 01, 1993 was in fact one Mohinder Singh s/o Raghubir Singh but not the present workman who is Mohinder Singh s/o Man Singh. The statement was inadvertently made and was far from truth. On the statement, the petition was rendered infructuous. No further proceedings appeared to have been taken thereafter till the workman filed another CWP No.17079 of 2007 which was disposed of on Nov. 06, 2007 by a direction to pass a speaking order on the claim. Speaking order was passed bringing to light the truth that there was a mistake committed on wrong identity. The claim was dismissed. A contempt petition was filed which was disposed of with liberty to the workman to approach the Labour Court. This is how the matter has reached this Court.

(3.) The defence before the Labour Court was on mistaken identity and the period of service was far too brief from 1986 to 1987 with intermittent periods of work which were under execution at that time. On completion of work the services of the workman were terminated. He was a daily wager. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any replication was filed by the workman refuting the stand of the department that it was not he but some other person whose services had been regularized. Therefore, the statement of the department before the Labour Court has to be accepted as true.