CWP No. 8284 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8284 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.05.2010 Malwa Khalsa Sr. Secondary School ...... PETITIONER VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. J.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure P-5), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Award given on Reference No. 646 of 1997, which was made in the earlier demand notice submitted by respondent No. 2-workman, was based on a voluntary settlement arrived at between the parties. The said Award dated CWP No. 8284 of 2010 2 10.11.2000 (Annexure P-1) clearly specified that as per the voluntary settlement entered into between the parties, the workman had accepted that he be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages on his reporting for duty on 13.11.2000 on the previous terms and conditions. In compliance with the agreement and the Award passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2-workman was reinstated in service on the same terms and conditions. As per the terms of his initial appointment, his appointment was on an ad-hoc post, which started with each session and was terminated at the end of the session. The workman was reinstated in service on 13.11.2000 and he continued to work till the end of the session i.e. 31.05.2001. He was required to report back for duty after the summer vacations but the workman failed to do. Instead of reporting for duty, the workman preferred the demand notice which resulted in the reference, whereby the impugned Award has been passed. He contends that as the terms of his appointment, on the basis of which he was reinstated, were the same which were in his initial appointment, there was no violation of the terms and the services of the workman were not terminated but he was relieved on completion of the term and was asked to report back on duty on expiry of the vacations. He, on this basis, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court and the observations made therein with regard to the Management resorting to unfair labour practices are uncalled for and the award thus deserves to be set aside. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2-workman was appointed w.e.f. 19.07.1991 as Science Lab Assistant. He continued to work with the Management until his termination on 20.07.1996. He raised CWP No. 8284 of 2010 3 demand notice dated 13.08.1996, which was referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana vide Reference No. 646 of 1997. During the pendency of the said reference before the Labour Court, Ludhiana, both the Management and the workman entered into a settlement. As per the said settlement, statements were given before the Labour Court. On the basis of the statements, the Labour Court proceeded to pass an Award dated 10.11.2000 (Annexure P-1). The operative part of the said Award reads as follows:- “ This reference was taken up today. The parties have come to a voluntary settlement and given statements to the effect that the workman shall be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages on his reporting for duty on 13.11.2000, on the previous terms and conditions. The workman therefore is directed to report for duty on 13.11.2000. The reference stands answered accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.K.Aggarwal) Presiding Officer, 10.11.2000 Labour Court, Ludhiana.” A perusal of the said Award indicates that the workman was directed to report for duty on the previous terms and conditions. He was in fact taken back in service and he worked with the Petitioner-Management when his services, according to respondent No. 2-workman, were terminated w.e.f. 31.05.2001. His assertion is that he was not allowed to join duty after the vacations. The Management has not placed on record the initial appointment letter or the terms and conditions of his appointment, CWP No. 8284 of 2010 4 according to which the service of respondent No. 2-workman was to be governed as per the Award dated 10.11.2000 (Annexure P-1). In the absence of the said appointment letter or any other documents which would show the specific terms and conditions entered into between the parties, the only conclusion, which could be drawn in the light of the Award dated 10.11.2000, was that the workman was in continuous service of the petitioner-Management as per the settlement. The continuity of service can only be granted when there is no break. The assertion of the Management further is belied from the fact that the order dated 13.11.2000 Ex. M-3, which was the appointment letter of respondent No. 2-workman on his reinstatement in service as per the Award, was not served on respondent No. 2-workman. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record, had come to a conclusion that the said document is a fabricated document only with an intention to show that the workman was appointed for a fixed term i.e. Academic Session 2000-01. All this shows that the Management has not proved before the Labour Court the earlier terms and conditions and even the appointment letter, which was issued to the workman on his reinstatement as per the Award, was kept by the Management to itself. The conclusion thus drawn by the Labour Court cannot be said to be without any basis and there being no evidence on record, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 10, 2010 pj