Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Jat Education Society And Anr vs Presiding Officer And Anr on 5 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047669
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC: 047669
CWP-27377-2017(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
224 CWP-27377-2017(O&M)
Date of Decision:05.04.2024
THE JAT EDUCATION SOCIETY, ROHTAK AND ANR
.... Petitioner
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANR
....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)
1. Petitioners i.e.(i) The Jat Education Society Rohtak and
(ii) All India Jat Heroes Memorial College, Rohtak (being
Management), have filed the present writ petition, assailing the award
dated 08.03.2017(Annexure P-6) passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby reference No. 38 of 2004, filed under
Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the
Act of 1947') has been answered in favour of respondent No.2-Sunil
Kumar (workman).
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047669
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC: 047669
2. Present writ petition is the outcome of the second round
of litigation in regard to the Industrial Dispute raised by the workman.
At first instance, industrial dispute raised by the workman was
decided by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 04.03.2014 by
answering the reference against him. Thereafter, the workman
challenged the said award by filing CWP No.22753 of 2014, before
this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), the same was allowed
vide judgment dated 22.11.2016 by setting aside the impugned award
and directed the Labour Court to decide the reference afresh within a
period of six months.
The operative part of the impugned award is reproduced
herebelow:
"3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that vide Annexure P-4 dated
5.12.2007, he submitted an application for
summoning witnesses and records like muster
roll/payroll and other service records pertaining
to the petitioner. On 2.7.2010, one Raj Singh,
Clerk of Jat College, Rohtak appeared and sought
time that record would be made available in
future date. However, the same was not complied
by Raj Singh, Clerk. Ignoring the application for
summoning service records relating to the
petitioner, the Labour Court proceeded to pass
award. Therefore, award of the Tribunal dated
4.3.2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded
for consideration of application for summoning
witness as well as production of records like
muster roll/pay roll and other service particulars
of the petitioner. The Labour Court is directed to
decide the reference afresh within a period of six
months from today. If any LCRs are received by
the Registry, the same shall be returned to the
Labour Court at the earliest".
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047669
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC: 047669
Accordingly, reference/industrial dispute was restored on
07.12.2016 to its original number for its re-decision.
3. Facts pleaded by the workman are that he was appointed
as Assistant Computer Operator with The Jat Education Society
(Management) with effect from 01.10.1996. Despite his work and
conduct being satisfactory his services were terminated verbally on
24.12.2000 without assigning any reason. It was further pleaded that
his appointment was against a regular post and the required working
period of 240 days of service had been completed by him in the
preceding Calendar year from the date of his termination. Since, the
provisions of the Act of 1947, were not adhered to, same being
violative of Section 25 F of the Act of 1947, and the principle of "last
come first go" was also not followed causing violation of Section 25
G and 25 H of the Act of 1947. Thus, workman claimed the
termination to be declared as unsustainable as per law.
4. In the written statement filed by the Management the
pleadings raised by the workman were controverted by stating that
there was no regular and sanctioned post of Assistant Computer
Operator with the Management, and never any advertisement was
published for inviting any application. Workman was asked by the
principal of the respondent-college to work as a part-time worker at a
fixed salary of Rs.2,000/- per month.
5. Further explained that petitioner had worked only from
01.01.1997 to 31.03.1997, 16.08.1997 to 31.03.1998 and 16.09.1998
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047669
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC: 047669
to 28.02.1999. It was further pleaded that workman himself stopped
rendering the services because he never showed up in the office after
28.02.1999, thus, Management pleaded that instead of calling it a case
of termination, it could be said that the workman himself abandoned
the service. Management also denied the completion of 240 working
days and that the workman continuously worked upto 24.12.2000.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal
framed the following two issues:
"(i) Whether termination of services of Sh.
Sunil Kumar is justified and if not, to what relief
he is entitled? OPW
(ii) Relief."
Accordingly, to prove the issues, parties to the lis led
their evidence and learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion
that the reference was worth being allowed and thus, ordered for his
reinstatement on the same post with continuity in service, alongwith
25% back wages and all other consequential benefits. Learned
Tribunal found that the witness, namely, Raj Singh, Clerk, who
appeared as MW1 made an admission during the cross-examination
that workman had continuously worked with the Management from
01.10.1996 to 24.12.2000 as Assistant Computer Operator. He also
admitted that no notice or retrenchment compensation was given to
the workman before terminating him from service. From the
statement of the said witness, learned Tribunal also concluded that the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047669
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC: 047669
required working of 240 days was also proved in the preceding one
year from the date of his termination.
7. To clear the doubt of the actual working period of the
workman with the Management, there was direction to produce the
complete record such as the Muster roll and the attendance register etc
(as noticed in paragraph No. 14 of the award). However, the same was
never produced and resultantly, adverse inference was drawn by the
Tribunal. Thus, drawing of adverse inference would mean believing
the case put forth by the workman and disbelieving the defence put
forth by the Management.
8. Additionally, Raj Singh, Clerk (MW1) also admitted to
the fact, that no seniority list was prepared at the time of removal of
the petitioner and that a new appointment had also been made after his
removal. Such a deposition strengthens the plea raised by the
workman and thus, it is a case of clear violation of Sections 25 F, 25
G, and 25 H of the Act of 1947.
9. During the course of the hearing, Mr. R.K. Malik, learned
Senior Counsel, submits that the witness had deposed out of the
record and against the truth, thus, in the interest of justice, his
statement requires to be ignored.
This Court is not in agreement with such a contention, for
the reason that Raj Singh, who appeared as MW1 is the witness
produced by the Management itself and is supposed to speak truth,
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047669
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC: 047669
moreover, there is no reason for the Court to conclude that his
deposition is against the truth.
10. On the other hand, it is within the domain of the
Management to produce the summoned record through witness Raj
Singh or any other witness. In case, Raj Singh (MW1) was deposing
against truth, Management could get the witness declared as hostile.
However, no such attempt was made, therefore, Management would
be bound by the deposition of its witness and cannot wriggle out of
the same later on i.e. now.
11. Moreover, the present writ petition has been filed by the
Management against the award passed by the learned Labour Court in
favour of the workman. Workman has been out of the job for the last
more than 23 years and as stated by the counsel the back wages under
Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 have never been paid to him. This
way, Management has deprived the workman with the relief granted
by the Labour Court.
12. In view of the aforementioned reasons, recorded by
learned Labour Court and also affirmed by this Court, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned
Labour Court. While maintaining the same, the present petition is
hereby dismissed.
[SANJAY VASHISTH]
April 05, 2024 JUDGE
rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned yes/no
Whether reportable? yes/no
6 of 6
