C.W.P. No.7992 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7992 of 2001 Date of Decision: 05.10.2009 Brij Mohan .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Faridabad and others ...Respondents Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The award under challenge is a rejection of reference sought at the instance of the workman that he had been unlawfully terminated from service. The claim of the workman was that he had been in continuous service from May 1991 till 26.03.1994 when his services were abruptly terminated by the management. The management entered into defence denying the contention of the workman that he had been in continuous service and in the course of the trial before the Labour Court, the workman had filed an application for summoning the acquittance sheets on which the wages of the workman Brij Mohan had been paid as well as the attendance register for the period from May 1991 to March 1994. Before the Labour Court, however, the management had produced only the photocopies of muster rolls for C.W.P. No.7992 of 2001 -2- some years and months but not of the muster rolls during the relevant period that is namely from 26.03.1993 to 26.03.1994. 2. Before the Labour Court, the evidence had also been let in through SDO, Daulat Ram who had produced the muster roll of only some of the months. He had admitted in his evidence that he had not brought the salary sheet as was summoned to him. He, however, admitted in his evidence that he knew the workman and that he had worked with M.C.F. under him. He also admitted that there was original muster rolls but they had not been brought before the Court. On the basis of evidence let in before the Labour Court, the Labour Court assumed that the workman must have worked for the entire period for the months for which the muster rolls had not been produced. Still the Labour Court found that the workman must be stated to have worked only for 235 days. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the workman points out that the management was not justified in not producing the wage register and the original muster rolls which under Section 25-D of the Industrial Disputes Act shall require to be maintained by the management with signatures of the workman. The documents produced before the Court themselves were not authenticated in the sense that they did not contain the signatures of the workman and that the management was concealing the records to suit their own convenience. She also pointed out that the Labour Court had erred in failing to include number of days, which the workman had worked in December 1993, which if it had added would account more than 240 days and the Labour Court had completely erred in making any reckoning for March, 1993 which was also relevant for computation C.W.P. No.7992 of 2001 -3- of 12 months prior to the date of termination. Although the case is in the regular list and name of the counsel for the respondent is also shown in the cause list, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the workman as regards the non-production of the originals for the relevant periods when the documents had been summoned as well as the mistake pointed to the Labour Court's award failing to reckon the number of days that the workman would have worked in March 1993 as well as in December, 1993 go unrefuted. I find force in the argument made on behalf of the workman. The Labour Court was in error in finding that the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding the date of termination. The award of the Labour Court is erroneous and accordingly set aside. 4. Admittedly, the management had terminated the services without complying with the statutory mandate contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. No circumstances had been brought before Court to disentitle the workman to secure to him a right of reinstatement for statutory non-compliance. The workman shall also be entitled to the relief of reinstatement. The workman had not been working all this period and in my view, it shall be appropriate that the workman shall be permitted only 50% of the back wages. 5. The writ petition is allowed with the continuity of service and 50% back wages. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 05, 2009 Pankaj*