High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
RULDA RAM v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT ETC. - CWP-12806-2005  RD-P&H 68 (26 July 2005)
Rulda Ram Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court etc.
Present: Mr. Palwinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).
The petitioner workman was allegedly inducted into the service of the respondent management as a Beldar in 1972. He claims to have discharged his duties in the aforesaid capacity till his services were eventually terminated on 1.6.1995. Dissatisfied with the action of the respondent management in terminating his services, the petitioner workman issued a demand notice dated 14.10.1997, under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the failure of conciliation proceedings, 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 answered the reference against the petitioner workman on 7.3.2003. The award of the Labour Court dated 7.3.2003 has been impugned through the instant writ petition.
In so far as the claim of the petitioner workman under Section 25- F of the Act is concerned, the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion, that the petitioner workman had not been able to establish that he had rendered C.W.P. No. 12806 of 2005 Page
service for a period of 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. In so far as the aforesaid finding is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner workman could not invite our attention to any evidence produced by the petitioner workman before the Labour Court, other than his own oral statement to establish the aforesaid factual position.
In view of the above, we are satisfied that there is no evidence on the record of this case on the basis of which the conclusion as sought by the petitioner workman, can be drawn. This conclusion of ours, is based on the fact, that the respondent management had produced before the Labour Court Ex. M1, depicting the number of days of service rendered by the petitioner workman from June, 1994 to May, 1995. The respondent management had also produced before the Labour Court, the muster-roll for the period under reference i.e., Exs.M2 to M15. In the background of the aforesaid unassailable evidence, we find no infirmity in the award of the Labour Court, in so far as the claim of the petitioner workman under Section 25-F of the Act is concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner workman also invited our attention to the fact, that the petitioner workman had also raised a claim under Section 25-G of the Act. In so far as the aforesaid claim is concerned, there is no evidence, whatsoever, on the record of the Labour Court to depict, that any person junior to the petitioner -workman was retained in service at the time of retrenchment of the petitioner workman. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the claim of the petitioner workman under Section 25-G of the Act, is C.W.P. No. 12806 of 2005 Page
No other contention has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner workman.
( J.S. Khehar )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.