DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents. The present Appeal arises from order dated 19.09.2012 allowing C.W.J.C. No. 14349 of 2002 setting aside the award dated 11.03.2002 in Reference Case No. 88 of 1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I at Dhanbad. The Tribunal held that termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') as the appellant had worked over 240 days in a calendar year. It ordered reinstatement and also directed regularisation.

(2.) The Learned Single Judge held that any adjudication and conclusion had to be on basis of evidence and not interferences. There was no evidence with regard to the nature of the engagement of the appellant as a Messenger cum Sweeper. But that he had been engaged as a regular Sweeper. The findings of the Tribunal was perverse with regard to the nature of the engagement and the conclusion unjustified. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in arriving at the conclusion that there was no evidence before the Labour Court with regard to the status of the Appellant as a "Workman". The Management acknowledged his engagement for sweeping and cleaning work as a part time Sweeper. The documents called for by the Workman such as Attendance Register, Vouchers and the Ledger of the relevant period were not produced by the Management. The Labour Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference for engagement of 240 days in a calendar year making compliance with Section 25F of the Act mandatory.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192 and Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 6 SCC 584 for the proposition that if the appellant was a Workman within the terms of Section 2(s) of the Act, the nature of the appointment or the capacity in which he was working were irrelevant. Even an alleged invalid appointment cannot be an answer to non compliance with Section 25F of the Act and reinstatement must follow.