C.W.P.No.10719 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.10719 of 2009 Date of decision : 20.1.2011 Ghulla Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Rita Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.P.K.Garg, Advocate for the contemner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 1.10.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur pursuant to the adjudication entered upon by it on an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner filed an application under the aforesaid provisions and set up a plea that he had been appointed against a permanent post with the respondents and his services were terminated without holding any enquiry or issuing show cause notice or chargesheet on 1.10.1987. Thereafter, a settlement was arrived at on C.W.P.No.10719 of 2009 -2- 8.4.1988 under Section 12(3) of the Act but the petitioner was not taken back into service despite the fact that he had been regularly going to attend the work and the settlement was not honoured by the respondents. He thus pleaded that he filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act for computation of his wages from 12.4.1988 to 30.9.1988 amounting to Rs.3,440/-. The claim was granted to him vide order dated 30.1.1996. Yet another application was filed claiming wages up to 31.7.1992 which was also granted but the order was set aside in CWP No.17699 of 1999 and the petitioner was held entitled to full salary of Rs.46,820/- instead of 25% which was granted by the Labourt Court. It was thus pleaded that the respondents were not permitting him to join his duties as per the settlement dated 8.4.1988 and that he was entitled to the salary to the tune of Rs.4,03,025/- for the period 1.8.1992 to 30.9.2001 along with interest @ 18% per annum. The respondents denied the claim of the petitioner and pleaded that it was not maintainable. While denying the entire claim of the petitioner it was pleaded that the petitioner was never working on permanent basis and, therefore, the plea that he was an employee of the respondents is without basis. He was not employed on permanent basis. It was pleaded that he was merely working on daily wages and since his services were no longer required, he was not permitted to work. It was next contended that he was merely employed on seasonal basis and since he had never worked in the season, there was no question of giving him any pay. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had failed to honour the settlement as he C.W.P.No.10719 of 2009 -3- was asked to join at a place called Kapura after 17.8.1999 which he failed to do and on account thereof since he neither worked with the respondents nor joined his place of posting, there was no ground to admit his claim. On 17.8.1999 second application for wages was accepted but the matter was also tested before the High Court in CWP No.17699 of 1999. Notice of motion having been issued the respondents have filed reply and stated that the petitioner never approached the respondents to be reinstated in services. Rather, he was asked to report at Kapura which place he deliberately did not join. It was pleaded that there was seasonal work and they do not require the services of the petitioner. It was then pleaded that since the petitioner himself did not join at Kapura, there was no occasion to give him any pay as he never worked with them. During the course of proceedings before the Court, this Court questioned the petitioner as to whether he was willing to join to which he answered in the affirmative and to ward off any controversy which the parties were agitating before this Court i.e. the petitioner saying that he was not permitted to join, while the respondents saying that he never approached them, the Court directed that he be permitted to take his advocate along with him. The Court also came to the conclusion at one point of time that probably the respondents were deliberately not permitting the petitioner to join and were defying the court order and notice of contempt was issued in which an affidavit was filed by Shri Jarnail Singh, Forest Range Officer, the alleged contemner, which explanation was accepted by this Court C.W.P.No.10719 of 2009 -4- resulting in discharge of rule against him. The Court also had the opportunity to interact with the petitioner at that point of time. When questioned, the petitioner replied that he was being permitted to join duty as a daily wager but that was not acceptable to him as he was employed on permanent basis. The settlement on which heavy reliance was placed by the petitioner has not been placed before the Court although there is repeated reference in the applications filed by the petitioner. It is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner was a permanent employee although the claim of the petitioner was repeatedly accepted by the Labour Court while answering his applications under Section 33C(2) for various periods. In this view of the matter, it is very difficult for the Court to accept this in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more so when there is no material to show that the petitioner was ever employed with the respondents on terms of appointment other than on daily wages. It seems that the petitioner himself is at fault as he has refused to join the place of work allotted by the respondents on the plea that he is a permanent employee. As observed earlier, in the absence of any material in this regard, I am of the opinion that the petitioner himself has refused to work with the respondents. Consequently, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition is dismissed. 20.1.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss