CWP No.8209 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.8209 of 2008 Date of decision November 5, 2009 Smt. Santosh ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Rohtak and another. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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 award in challenge at the instance of the workman was rejection of the reference sought at her instance that the termination of service which had been effected by the respondents was illegal. Her contention was that she joined on 27.5.1996 and she had worked continuously till 27.12.1997 when she was illegally terminated. The reference followed after serving a demand notice and previously an ex- parte award had been passed on 6.11.2000. It appears that a petition to set aside the ex-parte award was filed on 3.12.2001 and the case was taken up again after setting aside the award. The Management filed a written statement denying the petitioner's continuous service as alleged but again remained absent when the Labour Court set the Management ex- parte on 25.10.2005. During the course of the pendency of the case the workman had moved an application for summoning the witness and depositing the witness expenses for calling for the records of the pay CWP No.8209 of 2008 2 slips, salary registers for the relevant period w.e.f 1.1996 to 31.12.1997. The workman had also filed Exs.W-1 to W-10, copies of pay slips in proof of her contention that she had worked and was also drawing wages. 2. Curiously the Labour Court did not issue summons perhaps on the ground that the Management had remained ex- parte and the records from the Management could not be summoned. At the same time the Court also rejected the documents Exs.W-1 to W-10 on the ground that there were mere copies. If chose, on the other hand, to rely on merely the written statement of the Management that was not supported by even entering appearance in Court, to hold that workman had not proved her continuous service for 240 days. The reasoning of the Labour Court is clearly erroneous. If the workman had taken steps to summon the original and had also paid the charges and the Court, however, did not think it necessary to issue summons in view of the fact that the Management had remained ex-parte, the Labour Court must have seen that the workman had given sufficient basis for production of secondary evidence. Documents W-1 to W-10 ought to have therefore been relied on and accepted the version of the petitioner of her continuous service of 240 days. Unsubstantiated written statement could not have been a basis for rejection of the workman's entitlement to reinstatement. 3. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatemnent but in view of the fact that the workman had not been in service till date, I deem it appropriate to allow only for 50% of the back wages. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 5, 2009 archana