C.W.P No.4622 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.4622 of 1998 Date of Decision:27.07.2009 Jagdish .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Surender Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of the rejection of a reference made to Labour Court in respect of services of a Peon in Municipal Committee, Rohtak. The contention of the workman had been that he was working from 01.01.1992 to 10.10.1992 when his services had been illegally terminated. The response to the workman's contention by the management was that the sanction for appointment was issued only by the Deputy Commissioner and the appointment had been made only on 01.02.1992 and his initial engagement was for 89 days. At various times, sanctions had been given by the Deputy Commissioner for extending the days and his services had been ultimately terminated on 31.08.1992. 2. Before the Labour Court, the workman produced the evidence of the ex-President of the Municipal Committee to prove that C.W.P No.4622 of 1998 -2- he had been appointed even on 01.01.1992 and the certificate of appointment was also produced. He had summoned for production of records from the Municipal Committee to show the list of persons, who had been employed but the documents had not been filed from January, 1992 but they had been filed only from February, 1992. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if the documents had been produced even prior to February, 1992, they would have been shown that he had been engaged even from January 1992. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Committee would contend that the President had no power of appointment at all and therefore, the Labour Court's finding that there could not have been any appointment in January, 1992 could not be faulted. His further contention was that the appointment itself could have been made only by the sanctioning authority, who was the Deputy Commissioner and the so-called appointment by the President cannot be taken to be, in any manner, valid to enable the workman to reckon his period of appointment to have commenced from January, 1992. 4. The Labour Court has found that the period of initial appointment for the workman was only from 03.02.1992 to 31.03.1992 on the basis of sanction (Ex.M-1) and again from April, 1992 to June, 1992 (Ex.M-2) and 01.07.1992 to 31.08.1992 (Ex.M-3). To a query whether the periodical extensions after providing for breaks in service would not constitute unfair labour practice, learned counsel for the management responded by pointing out that there was not even the basis of the plea by the workman and that the workman had approached the Labour Court with evidence that he had been C.W.P No.4622 of 1998 -3- engaged from 01.01.1992 to 10.10.1992 and if that was not established, the workman was not entitled to any relief before the Labour Court. 5. The Labour Court's finding has been rendered on a factual consideration of the number of days of his actual engagement and whether there could have been a lawful appointment by the President for workman to treat himself in service from January, 1992, the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court accords with law and evidence and there is no scope for interference in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fervently pleads that the workman has been fighting for his rights from nearly two decades and it will be unfair to show him door without providing for any relief. Going by the nature of evidence let in, when he had pleaded that he had been working even from 01.01.1992 and when he also brought the evidence of the President to support his contention, he had ground to submit that the management was deliberately withholding some records and not producing the muster roll. Having due consideration to all the relevant facts, I am of the view that interest of justice would be best served if a compensation of Rs.15,000/- is allowed to the petitioner payable within eight weeks by the 2nd respondent from the date of this order. 7. The Labour Court's award is modified only to the above extent and writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2009 Pankaj*