Jai Singh vs Bansal Iron Foundry And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 15913 P&H

LPA-834-2022 (O&M)                     1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                          LPA-834-2022 (O&M)
                                                    Date of Decision : 06.12.2022

Jai Singh                                               ...... Appellant

                              Versus

Bansal Iron Foundry and another                         ...... Respondents



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL


                                              ***

Present : Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.

*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J

CRM-1987-LPA-2022

This is an application for condonation of delay of 89 days in

filing the present appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit of

applicant-appellant.

Heard. For the reasons, mentioned in the application which is

duly supported by an affidavit of applicant-appellant, the same is allowed

and the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-834-2022

This Letters Patent Appeal assails the judgment dated

31.03.2022, passed by the learned Single Bench vide which the writ petition

filed by respondent No.1 seeking quashing of award dated 25.07.2014

(Annexure P-8 with the writ petition) (reference to annexures hereinafter

shall indicate reference to annexures with the writ petition) was allowed.

1 of 3

The facts, as emanating from the record, are that appellant was

helper with respondent No.1-firm at a salary of Rs.4250/- per month. As

per the appellant, he had been appointed by respondent No.1 on 31.03.2010

and worked continuously till 29.08.2011 when his services were illegally

terminated. He issued a demand notice dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure P-2)

stating that his services were terminated in controvention of the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinreferred to as 'the

Act'). The said demand notice was contested by respondent No.1. The

matter was referred to respondent No.2 wherein also both sides contested.

Vide award dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P-8), the reference was answered

in favour of appellant and it was held that the services of the appellant had

been terminated illegally. He was ordered to be reinstated with continuity

of service and full back wages and 9% interest in case of delay in payment.

This award was challenged in the writ petition.

The writ petition, filed by respondent No.1, having been

allowed, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the

learned Single Bench erred in allowing the writ petition. Learned counsel

has referred to various documents on record and has contended that

respondent No.2 had rightly passed the award 25.07.2014 (Annexure P-8)

and no interference was required in the same.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find no

reason to interfere in the decision of the learned Single Bench. Learned

Single Bench rightly observed that as per the birth certificate of the

appellant, he had attained the age of 58 years on 31.03.2010 and, therefore,

the version of respondent No.1 that the appellant had himself left the

2 of 3

services was more believable and credible. The appellant had also

withdrawn his provident fund which is also a pointer to the fact that the

appellant had left the job on his own. There was no oral or documentary

evidence on the file to even prima facie show that the appellant had worked

with respondent No.1 beyond 31.03.2010. No person or a co-worker was

examined before the Labour Court to prove this fact. In the absence of

documentary evidence regarding engagement of the appellant by respondent

No.1 beyond 31.03.2010, no oral evidence to the contrary could even

otherwise be taken into consideration. Infact, the Labour Court erred in

placing the onus upon respondent No.1 by holding that respondent No.1 had

not produced the muster rolls and, therefore, the appellant could be said to

have been working of its rolls. Since the appellant had left the services of

respondent No.1 on his own, it cannot be said that he was retrenched by

respondent No.1 nor is there any proof to show that he had worked for 240

days. Once it was not a case of retrenchment, no other procedure was

required to be followed. The learned Single Bench, therefore, rightly set

aside the award passed by the Labour Court. We find absolutely no reason

to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Bench.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we do

not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)                       (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
        JUDGE                                       JUDGE


06.12.2022
mamta

          Whether speaking/reasoned                 Yes/No
          Whether Reportable                        Yes/No



                                     3 of 3