Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Executive Engineer,PWD,Kaithal v. Gurdial Singh - CWP-9758-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3895 (10 July 2006)

CWPNo. 9758 of 2006 1


C.W.P. No. 9758 of 2006


The Executive Engineer,PWD,Kaithal ... PETITIONER.

Gurdial Singh and ... RESPONDENTS



Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG Haryana ...


Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing award 16.1.2006, Annexure P-6, allowing the claim application of the respondent No.1-workman.

It is the case of the petitioner, namely, The Executive Engineer, PWD, Kaithal, that respondent No.1, Gurdial Singh had been deputed to work under different contractors for doing maintainance work of the Water Supply Scheme of Kaithal Town and to maintain the tubewells and pipe lines etc. thereunder. The payments were made to respondent No.1 by the contractors. It is stated in the petition that respondent No.1-workman was never appointed by it at any point of time. It is further stated that after completion of the contract, the contractor removed respondent No.1 from service. The petitioner had no role to play at all in termination of services of respondent No.1. Petitioner has stated that on termination of services, respondent No.1-workman served upon it a CWPNo. 9758 of 2006 2

demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by stating that he was appointed as a Water Pump Operator under the petitioner- management on 1.9.2000 on daily-wage basis and he worked as such continuously without any break till 30.4.2003 when his services were terminated despite the fact that his work had been found to be satisfactory.

The workman had further stated in the said notice that the management has terminated his services without giving any notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act ibid in spite of the fact that he had completed 240 days' continuous service in a calendar year preceding his termination. He further stated that the persons junior to him had been retained and even fresh recruitments were made by the management in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G and H of the Act ibid.

After giving of demand notice by the workman-respondent No.1, conciliation proceedings commenced which however failed which led to raising of an industrial dispute.

Written statement was filed by the management before the Labour Court. Thereafter, both parties led evidence in support of their respective claim.

The learned Labour Court on appreciation of evidence adduced before it, allowed the claim application of respondent-workman and set aside the order terminating his services, with a direction to the management to reinstate the workman along with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service and full back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award. Hence, this writ petition by the management.

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has not been able to convince us that the respondent-workman had only worked under the various contractors and had not directly worked under the petitioner- department. A bare perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned Labour Court has discussed the statement of the management witness, MW-1 Yash Pal Malhotra, who admitted that the log-book placed on record, had been issued by the Government and it is only the J.E. who had been checking the working of the tubewells and that the log book in question did not contain the signatures of any contractor. He also admitted that no CWPNo. 9758 of 2006 3

contract was entered into with the contractor to get the work executed, with another admission that the department had not given any contract to engage labour for operating tube-well in respect of the job order. The evidence of the said witness has been appreciated by the Labour Court in conjunction with the statement of MW-2 Prem Chand, contractor, who has also admitted in cross-examination that he had no licence for doing the work of contract and also to the effect that he had not been preparing/maintaining attendance record of the respondent-workman. This led the learned Labour Court to opine that the respondent-workman did work under the petitioner- department as Water Pump Operator on different tubewells in Sub Division No.2, Kaithal, without any break for the period from 1.9.2000 to 30.4.2003 under the direct supervision and control of the petitioner-department and not under any contractor. The learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has not been able to confront anything before us to take a contrary view. It has rather been established on record that the respondent-workman had worked from 1.9.2000 to 30.4.2003. He,thus, had completed 240 days of service continuously in the last 12 preceding calendar months. Admittedly, there was non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

The learned Labour Court has rightly held that the termination of the workman due to non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act is illegal.

While exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. In our view, the findings are neither perverse nor based on no evidence. In these circumstances, it would not be just and proper to interfere with the award made by the Labour Court.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.



( J. S. NARANG )

July 6, 2006 JUDGE


CWPNo. 9758 of 2006 4


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.