High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
RANDHIR v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA - CWP-19793-2005  RD-P&H 159 (20 September 2005)
Civil Writ Petition No. 19793 of 2005
Date of decision : 20.12.2005.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others .................respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal
Present: Sh. Rajesh K. Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner.
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)
The petitioner-workman was allegedly inducted into the service of the Forest Department in 1991 as a Mali. It was further alleged by the petitioner-workman that he discharged his duties uninterruptedly from 1991 to 16.9.1999. On account of termination of his services w.e.f. 17.9.1999 the petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). On the failure of conciliation proceedings between the parties, the dispute raised by the petitioner-workman was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as `the Labour Court'). The Labour Court by its award dated 24.1.2005, answered the reference against the petitioner-workman. The petitioner-workman has, therefore, impugned the award of the Labour Court dated 24.1.2005, by filing the instant writ petition.
The solitary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner- workman before this Court is, that the petitioner-workman had rendered service in excess of 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. It is, therefore, submitted that the action of the respondent-management in terminating his services without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, must be held to be in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Resultantly, the petitioner-workman claims reinstatement in service with continuity in service and full back wages.
It is not possible for us to accept the aforestated contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the factual position depicted in paragraph 13 of the impugned award, that an official of the Forest Department, summoned by the petitioner- workman appeared before the Labour Court alongwith the service record of the petitioner-workman. Be that as it may, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner-workman, to the effect, that the management be directed to file a statement of the working days of the petitioner-workman, as per the record produced by it before the Labour Court. In furtherance of the aforesaid request, made on behalf of the petitioner, a direction was issued by the Labour Court to the respondent-management, requiring it to file a statement disclosing the number of working days during which the petitioner had rendered service. In compliance with the said direction Exhibit W-2 was filed in the Labour Court on behalf of the respondent-management.
Additionally, Ajay Kumar, Clerk, who appeared as WW-2 authenticated the veracity of the compilation Exhibit W-2. On the basis of the factual position narrated in Exhibit W-2, namely, that the petitioner-workman had only worked for 169 days during the year 1998, and had not rendered any service, whatsoever, during the year 1999, the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact, that the petitioner- workman had not rendered service in excess of 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any material on the record of this case on the basis of which, a finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Labour Court, could be drawn.
Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one further opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to lead evidence before the Labour Court, so as to enable him to establish that he has rendered service in excess of 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. It is not possible for us to accept the instant request of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner-workman had the right to inspect and examine the record produced before the Labour Court by the respondent-management.
The petitioner, did not choose to discharge the aforesaid exercise, and rather, relied on the respondent-management to submit a compilation of the number of his working days. It is, on the asking of the petitioner himself, that the Labour Court directed the respondent- management to prepare a statement showing month-wise working days during which petitioner-workman had rendered service. The aforesaid direction was complied with by the respondent- management, in as much as, it placed on the record of the Labour Court, a compilation, Exhibit W-2. Exhibit W-2 came to be confirmed through the statement of Ajay Kumar, Clerk, who appeared before the Labour Court as WW-2. In the background of the factual position noticed above, it is not possible for us to accept the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, to afford the petitioner, yet another opportunity to establish the factual position pertaining to the number of working days on which he had rendered service in the 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. This view of ours is based on the fact that an opportunity having once been given to the petitioner and having not availed of by him, he is now, not entitled to yet another opportunity for the same purpose.
For the reasons recorded above, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court.
( J.S. Khehar )
( S.N.Aggarwal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.