IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1959 of 1999 Date of decision: 31.07.2009 Kaka Singh ....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Riar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. --- 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 award that rejected the claim of the workman that sought reinstatement and back wages on the basis that he had worked between 01.01.1985 to 08.12.1986, is the subject matter in this writ petition. 2. The admitted case was that he was a daily rated worker in the Electricity Board having been given an employment by one Shri Sham Lal Singla, Junior Engineer. The Court found that since he was daily rated worker, he could not be a workman within the definition of Section 2(s). The legal inference which was made by the Labour Court was patently wrong and I have no difficulty in accepting the contention Civil Writ Petition No.1959 of 1999 - 2 - made on behalf of the workman that the rejection of his claim to such status, was not correct. 3. The workman, apart his statement ipse dixit that he worked for the period between 01.01.1985 to 08.12.1986, did not produce any records, but on the other hand, he relied on a statement by the management in Reference No.39 of 1988 that the workman had put in 1 ½ years of service with break as a daily rated worker. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board would state that he had been engaged only in December 1985 and not in January 1985 as contended by the workman. Such a contention also cannot be correct because he could not have worked for 1 ½ years as admitted already by the management. The management that ought to have had all the records in its hands but did not produce the same and it would be appropriate to draw an adverse inference against the management and uphold the claim that the workman that he had worked between 01.01.1985 to 08.12.1986. 3. The Electricity Board is a public body that has its own recruitment rules. A valid employment cannot obtain by offer of employment as a daily wager by a Junior Engineer of the Electricity Board. The claim to reinstatement is, therefore, untenable but several years have passed and for the long pendency of the case that it had involved when he was expecting to be re-employed, he shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall bear simple interest of 7.5% per annum. The Civil Writ Petition No.1959 of 1999 - 3 - award of the Labour Court is set aside and the writ petition is ordered in terms as indicated above. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.07.2009 sanjeev