IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 8147 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 26.05.2009 M/s. Bhogpur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Labour Court Jalandhar and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with 25% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice till the date of reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are perverse as the same are contrary to the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties before the Labour Court. He contends that since the workman was a daily wager, therefore, he would not be entitled to protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). For this contention, he relies upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Executive Engineer H.U.D.A., Gurgaon vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and another, ( C.W.P.No.10723 of 2004 decided on 5.7.2007) C.W.P.No. 8147 of 2009 -2- (Annexure P-6) and The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula vs. Presiding Officer and another, (C.W.P.No.18030 of 2003 decided on 19.10.2007). Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the claim of the respondent-workman is delayed and, therefore, the reference deserves to be rejected on this ground as well. He further contends that the appointment of the respondent-workman was on seasonal basis and, therefore, reinstatement as has been ordered by the Labour Court is not in accordance with law. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the record and the award as well as the statements relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner-Management has not been able to prove that the workman was appointed on seasonal basis. The certificate dated 7.7.1993 Exhibit WW1/1 issued by the Managing Director of the petitioner-Management has been placed on record wherein it has been clearly stated that the workman had been working with the petitioner-Sugar Mill as a Peon on daily wage basis since 1984. Counsel for the petitioner, with reference to this certificate, states that the same is of a subsequent year and, therefore, there was no question of termination of the services of the workman and the reference is, thus, pre mature. This submission of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted as it has not been denied by the Management that the said certificate has not been issued by it. The records clearly indicate that the respondent-workman was terminated from service in the year 1991, as had been suggested to him in his cross-examination by the Management, meaning thereby that the Management accepted that the services of the C.W.P.No. 8147 of 2009 -3- workman were terminated in March, 1991. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is a daily wager, he would not be entitled to protection of Section 25-F of the Act as his termination would be under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act, the same cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the contention of the petitioner-Management with regard to the appointment of the workman being on seasonal basis has been rejected by the Labour Court by giving cogent reasons on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the workman. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner i.e. Executive Engineer H.U.D.A., Gurgaon's case (supra) and The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula's case (supra) also would not be of much help to the case of the petitioner-Management as those were the cases wherein this Court came to the conclusion that the workman could not be reinstated in service as the post on which he was ordered to be reinstated was a public post which was filled up de hors the statutory rules governing the service and further the appointment of the workman was for a specified term. The next contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged termination of the workman was in the year 1991 whereas the demand notice was dated 6.3.2000 and thus delayed. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted as the respondent-workman had initially, on termination of his services, preferred a civil suit in the year 1991 itself which remained pending till 13.11.1999 when the same was withdrawn by him with liberty to file his claim before the Labour Court. Accordingly, the demand notice so preferred by the C.W.P.No. 8147 of 2009 -4- respondent-workman cannot be said to be delayed as the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a claim under the Act only on 13.11.1999. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court being justified and based on the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties before it and calls for no interference by this Court. Dismissed. May 26, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No