IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15276 of 2010 State Bank of Patiala, Karnal Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-1, Chandigarh & another Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This petition is filed by a Bank to impugn the award passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh. As per the averment made in the petition, respondent No.2 was appointed as Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 19.3.1997. As per the petitioner-Bank, respondent No.2 was engaged not as a regular Sweepress but only to work for one and a half hour and was paid at the rate of Rs.18/- per working day. It is also stated that she was engaged without following any due process for appointment. The plea, thus, was that it was only a contractual engagement. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led before the Court, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the period during which the workman worked was not in dispute. It is only in regard to the nature of appointment that was disputed. However, no record could be produced before the Labour Court to show that there was any contract of employment. Finding is that the Management had failed to file even iota of evidence to prove that the workman was working with the Management on any contract. The submission that respondent No.2 was not a daily wager would be belied from the evidence given by the witness produced by the petitioner-Management. In the first line of his cross- examination, the witness Shri R.K.Gupta (MW-1) conceded that Civil Writ Petition No.15276 of 2010 : 2 : respondent No.2 was engaged on 19.3.1997 as a daily waged worker as Safai Karamchari. In this background, the submission that she was on a contract or that she could not be treated as a workman would be against the evidence on record. It is also conceded that in her place, one Suresh Kumar has been appointed. Accordingly, the Court has found that this would lead to violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. I am not, thus, prepared to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 cannot be treated as a workman. The workman has been allowed a compensation of Rs.1.00 lac, which, considering the present day scenario, cannot be termed to be an excessive. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. August 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE