CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22097 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 13 ,2010 The Executive Engineer (E), BSNL, Electrical Division, Chandigarh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Prersiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court I, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. D. R. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, BSNL) has filed this writ petition through Executive Engineer to impugn the award passed by the Labour Court dated 23.6.2010 on the ground that the same is illegal. Respondent-workman was engaged as part time Sweeper and had served from 1992 to 27.7.2001. She had sought reference of the dispute regarding her termination by pleading that she had worked as part time Sweeper and had completed 240 days in the year preceding the date of her termination. As per the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22097 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: workman, her services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner responded to the claim filed by the workman. In the reply, it is stated that respondent-workman was working less than three hours and, thus, would not be covered by the definition of workman. Plea further is that she was never engaged against any sanctioned post and had been performing petty jobs for less than three hours a day. It is also pleaded that the respondent- workman had been working as a full time Sweeper with M/s IDS Infotech. Ltd. The Labour Court, however, has answered the reference in favour of the workman, which is now impugned through the present writ petition. At the outset, it may need a notice that somewhat similar writ petition was filed by BSNL (petitioner), where a part time sweeper was terminated on similar or identical grounds and the Labour Court had decided the reference in favour of the workman. That writ petition was admitted for hearing. However, it now transpires that BSNL-petitioner has resorted to terminate the services of large number of workmen employed as part time Sweepers and more than one reference in this regard were made to the Labour Court. All the references have been answered in favour of the respective workmen. Accordingly, when this writ petition came up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner pleaded for admission of the same in view of the earlier order passed in CWP No.21696 of 2010. Instead of admitting this writ petition, it is considered appropriate to decide the writ petition itself as the interest of lowly CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22097 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: paid workman, otherwise would remain pending for adjudication for number of years. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The plea is that the workman was appointed as part time Sweeper and is not entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also disclosed that before raising the industrial dispute, the workman had filed an application before Central Administrative Tribunal, when a direction was issued for considering her representation, which was disposed of by the management. The Labour Court has noticed and considered all the pleas in an appropriate manner. The petitioner-management has pleaded that the workman had voluntarily abandoned her services as she was working somewhere else. This was found contrary to the stand taken in the reply, where it was mentioned that services of respondent- workman were terminated because she was working somewhere else as full time worker. The workman had denied this fact and had pointed out that she had started working with M/s IDS Infotech. Ltd. only when her services were terminated by the petitioner. In this regard, the only document referred in support by the petitioner is the photo copy of the bank document, showing payment to the respondent-workman. One name i.e. Smt.Rajo Devi is found mentioned at Sr.No.1 of this document. The respondent-workman, however, was not addressed any question in cross-examination that this was her name. Apart from this, there was no evidence led to show or prove this fact. The Labour Court has rightly observed that a witness could have been summoned and produced from M/s IDS CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22097 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: Infotech. Ltd. to prove the record to show that the respondent- workman had worked with them. In the absence thereof, the Labour Court rightly declined this limb of submissions made as the same could not be established. The other submission made is that the respondent- workman had been working for less than three hours and she would not be entitled to protection of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has rightly observed that the industrial legislation, being a beneficial legislation, is meant to protect the interest of the workman and, thus, there is no difference between the part time workman and full time employee. Even the services of the part time workman can be terminated only after following the procedure given in the said Act. There is, thus, no substance in this submission made on behalf of the petitioner. There is no other ground urged to challenge the award. The Labour Court had even referred to a circular, benefit of which was not given to the workman. The workman had placed on record certain documents relating to services of one Smt.Maya Devi, who was engaged as part time sweeper in the year 1993. She was given benefit of the circular letter whereas the same benefit has been denied to the respondent-workman. It is noticed that services of Maya Devi were regularised on the basis of this circular, who was also working for less than 4 hours. It is, thus, seen that the petitioner- management has not been fair in dealing with the cases of such lowly paid employees. They have been made to work for considerable period and have now been terminated without much CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22097 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: justification. There is no ground made out, calling for interference in the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. December 13,2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE