C.W.P. No.4608 of 1994 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.W.P. No.4608 of 1994 Date of decision: 4.11.2011 Haryana State Electricity Board ..Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court Ambala and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Prabodh Mittal Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for respondent No.2. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J 1. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India was filed in 1994 by the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board against the award of the Labour Court, Ambala dated 10.2.1993 answering the reference No. 186 of 1988 under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act in favour of the workman-respondent No.2. The Labour Court by its award reinstated the workman as daily rated labour but as fresh appointee without back wages. The Labour Court has returned a finding of fact on the strength of the evidence of the management’s witness who admitted in his cross-examination that the name of the workman was struck off from muster rolls from October, 1983. It is past dispute that striking off the name of a workman from muster roll amounts to retrenchment and therefore, compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 C.W.P. No.4608 of 1994 2 (for short, the “Act”) is condition precedent to termination. 2. The Labour Court has also returned a positive finding that there was non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act and that the workman had put in 240 days of work in a block of 12 months preceding termination on 12.9.1983. It has also come in evidence of the management that the workman served the Board as a daily rated worker from April 1979 to 12.9.1983. In the statement of claim, the workman had asserted that while his services were terminated, persons juniors to him were retained in service and there was violation of Section 25-G of the Act as well. The plea of the management in defense of the action was that the respondent- workman had abandoned service after having absented from duty from 12.9.1983 onwards. The workman had denied this assertion. The Labour Court found no evidence to support the claim of abandonment which is a question of fact to be determined in the light of surrounding circumstances of each case and abandonment cannot readily be drawn in the absence of cogent evidence. No such evidence was produced by the management and therefore, the Labour Court was correct in rejecting the plea. The Labour Court also found that the workman had raised an industrial dispute after a lapse of 4 years. This delay would not be sufficient to non-suit the workman since no limitation has been prescribed for raising disputes under Section 10(1)( c) of the Act. The Labour Court, keeping this fact in mind, moulded the relief and ordered reinstatement as a fresh appointee without back wages. This matter was admitted on 11.4.1994 by the Division Bench and stay of operation of award was refused. The award has continued to operate. 3. I have heard Mr. Prabodh Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Punj for the workman-respondent and perused the record. C.W.P. No.4608 of 1994 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any jurisdictional error in the award which would require interference in supervisory certiorari jurisdiction of this court. The award is well reasoned and calls for no interference. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. 5. Mr. Punj informs the Court that the respondent-workman has some years of service left in the event of his reinstatement. He also informs that the workman is also in receipt of a sum of ` 434/ per month during the pendency of this petition. Since the workman has not questioned the award of the Labour Court, the same is upheld qua non-grant of back wages. As a result of this order, the respondent-workman would be entitled to reinstatement as a fresh appointee forthwith. He would henceforth be entitled to current wages for the post from which his services were terminated. (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE November 4,2011 nk