Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Coop Supply ... vs The Presiding Officer & Ors on 31 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215
CWP No.4492 of 2016 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 31st MARCH, 2022
The Chairman, Punjab State Co-op Supply Marketing Federation
(Markfed) and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Amritsar and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present : Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction
especially in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned award
dated 08.09.2015 (Annexure P-2), whereby the respondent No.1 has
answered the reference against the petitioners and the claim of the
respondent No.2-workman has been allowed.
The brief facts; as involved in the present petition; are that
respondent No.2-workman asserted that he was working as a Clerk in the
office of Manager, Markfed Rice Processing Complex, Naushera
Pannuan, District Tarn Taran, Punjab. He was getting salary of Rs.2900/-
1 of 5
CWP No.4492 of 2016 (O&M)
per month. The respondent-workman is having a qualification of M.A.
(Political Science) and has also done diploma in computer application.
Therefore, he was fully eligible for the post of clerk. The respondent-
workman had completed 240 days in each year during the tenure he
remained with the petitioners. Despite that, the services of the
respondent-workman were terminated without following the procedure as
established under the law. His service was terminated w.e.f. December,
2008 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, numerous requests were
made by the respondent-workman to the petitioners for reinstatement.
However, the same were not acceded to. Hence, the labour dispute was
raised by the workman; which was referred to the Labour Court. The
reference having been made to the Labour Court, the same was answered
in favour of the respondent-workman. Challenging the said award, the
petitioners-firm has filed the present petition.
Arguing the case, the counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent-
workman has ever worked for 240 days in the twelve calendar months
immediate preceding the date of his termination. It is further submitted
that, in fact, the respondent-workman had never remained as an employee
of the petitioners. Rather, the father of the respondent-workman was a
service provider with the petitioners, therefore, he might have shown his
presence somewhere in his record. However, in the record of the
petitioners, there is nothing to show that the respondent-workman ever
worked with them.
2 of 5
CWP No.4492 of 2016 (O&M)
On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No.2-
workman has submitted that the respondent-workman had worked with
the petitioners for about 8 long years. Since the respondent-workman was
doing the clerical job, therefore, abundant record of his service is present
in the official record of the petitioners only. The said record has duly
been produced before the Labour Court in the form of receipts/passes
issued by the respondent-workman at the out-gate of the complex. The
said receipts/passes were from the receipt books issued by the petitioners
only. Moreover, all the office orders of the petitioners were marked to the
respondent-workman also, for being noted, being an employee of the
petitioners. Not only that, the respondent-workman had even examined a
co-employee, who duly deposed before the Labour Court to the effect
that the respondent-workman had worked with the petitioners upto
December, 2008. Hence, it is submitted that the Labour Court has rightly
passed the award against the petitioners. Accordingly, the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and having gone
through the case file, this Court finds that the Labour Court has rightly
passed the award. The petitioners started and ended with the assertion
that the respondent-workman had never been in their employment. On
the contrary, the respondent-workman has placed as many as 33
documents on record to show that he was in employment of the
petitioners. All these documents have been placed on record and duly
proved by WW3 Gurpreet Singh with the assertion that the respondent-
workman has been working continuously for about 8 years. Despite that,
the petitioners have not even cross-examined this witness on the said
3 of 5
CWP No.4492 of 2016 (O&M)
assertion of the witness. Accordingly, the case of the respondent-
workman duly stand supported by the documentary, as well as, the oral
evidence, whereas, the unsubstantiated case of the petitioners have been
of a flat denial.
Although, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'M/s Essen Deinki
Versus Rajiv Kumar, 2003 AIR (SC) 38' to stress that it is the
responsibility of the workman to show that he had worked for at least 240
days in twelve calendar months preceding his termination and that in the
present case, the said burden has not been discharged by the respondent-
workman, however, this argument is not supported by the evidence on
file. There cannot be any dispute qua the proposition laid down in the
above mentioned judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. However, in
the present case there is plethora of evidence which shows that the
respondent-workman had worked continuously for 8 years from the year
2001 till 2008. Even, the witness has deposed to this effect and the said
witness has not even been cross-examined by the petitioners. Hence, it
can safely be taken to have been proved that the respondent-workman has
successfully established before the Labour Court that he has worked for
240 days.
As mentioned above, the only assertion of the petitioners is
that of a flat denial of the respondent-workman having ever worked with
them. However, the respondent-workman has led so many documents in
evidence showing that he was actually performing duties at the complex
of the petitioners and was dealing with the official documents, including
the seriatim receipts and out-gate passes issued by the office of the
4 of 5
CWP No.4492 of 2016 (O&M)
petitioners. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the respondent-
workman had stolen those receipt books and he continued issuing those
receipts/passes for 7-8 years. It is also not the case of the petitioners that
the supplies mentioned in those receipts and out-gate passes were never
dealt with by the office of the petitioners. Hence, it is established beyond
any doubt that the respondent-workman had been an employee with the
petitioners. If at all, the petitioners intended to substantiate their flat
denial of respondent No.2 ever having worked with them, the least it was
expected from them; was that they should have produced the record of
the relevant period; regarding the complex where the respondent-
workman claimed to have worked. However, even that record has been
withheld by the petitioners. This again is an attempt to hide the correct
facts. Accordingly, the adverse inference has to be drawn against the
petitioners even on that count.
In view of the above, this Court finds itself in agreement
with the award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the present
petition is dismissed and the award passed by the Labour Court is upheld.
All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of as such.
31st MARCH, 2022 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'sandeep' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
5 of 5
