IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10288 of 1998 Date of decision:20.07.2009 Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Mazdoor ...Petitioner Union Nawanshahar versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, ...Respondents Chandigarh and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 --- 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 workman made a demand for higher scale of pay commensurate with the alleged employment as Bio-Lab Technical Assistant when he was actually designated to a lower post as Cane Watchman with lower scale of pay. On a rejection of the demand by the management, the workman obtained a reference to the Labour Court which turned down his plea. The workman is the writ petitioner before this Court. 2. The workman had been inducted in the service of the management as a Cane Watchman on daily basis and regularized on the same post with regular scale in accordance with Wage Board for Sugar Civil Writ Petition No.10288 of 1998 - 2 - Industry. The workman claimed that he had been sent for training to the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, between 18.07.1990 to 21.07.1990 and later sanction had been accorded on 15.10.1994 to work in the Biological Control Lab. According to him, the Board of Directors passed a resolution permitting him to work as a Bio-Lab Technical Assistant in July, 1991, but the resolution had not been given effect. The complaint against the non-implementation of the resolution through a demand notice was not favourably considered, that gave arise to the present dispute. According to the workman, there had been an Appointment Sub Committee as admitted by the management, but the management had deliberately not produced the proceedings of the Committee and therefore, adverse inference ought to be drawn against the management. 3. The management contended that the basic qualification for a Bio-Lab Technical Assistant was Bachelor's Degree and the workman had been merely sent for training to keep the pests in live position. He had never been sent for training as a Lab Technical Assistant. The nature of working of Lab Technical Assistant was different from what the workman was capable of doing. There had never been any resolution of the Managing Director or the Appointment Sub Committee giving him promotion as claimed by the workman. The Labour Court found that the plea of the workman was not established after adverting to the documentary and oral evidence submitted by both the parties. Civil Writ Petition No.10288 of 1998 - 3 - 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the workman points out to the direction when the management witness Dildar Singh had been examined that the proceedings book of the Appointment Sub Committee for the period 17.05.1991 as also the proceedings book dated 24.07.1991 to be produced before the Court at the next hearing. The witness had come to the following hearing with the proceedings book dated 17.05.1991, copy of which was marked as Ex.M/4, but however, the proceedings dated 24.07.1991 had not been produced. The evidence he gave was that there was only one Composite Committee known as Appointment-cum-Purchase Committee of the establishment and the evidence previously given by him that there was one Committee called the Appointment Sub Committee and another called Purchasing Committee, was not correct. The learned counsel would, therefore, want an adverse inference to be drawn by the non- production of the resolution books relating to the proceedings dated 24.07.1991. The learned Senior counsel also urged that the workman had been sent to PAU, Ludhiana, for the training programme on 18.07.1990 and the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Cane Development Officer-cum-Biologist, dated 15.10.1994, clearly revealed that the sanction accorded to the workman to work at the Biological Control Lab set out the work as maintenance of record of field observation and release stock register as well as preparation of Trichocads and to take care of Lab stocks. This, according to him, was the surest indication that the workman had been employed only as a Lab Technical Assistant. Civil Writ Petition No.10288 of 1998 - 4 - 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the nature of training which had been given to him at PAU, Ludhiana, was only to keep his duty as a Cane Watchman and he had been sent for training programme only to keep pest in alive position which was very much the function of a Cane Watchman. He referred to the complex duties which a Lab Technical Assistant had to perform set out in great detail in the statement. The Labour Court in its award had adverted to all the relevant details. He had referred to the evidence of Subhash Doomra (MW-1) who gave evidence about the duties as required to be performed by the Technical Bio-Lab Assistant to identify scientifically parasites, to develop suitable diet for friendly insects and rearing techniques for multiplication of friendly insects and to be proficient in the science of Entomology insects, pests and parasites. The Labour Court had also found that the assertion made by the management witness had not been challenged in the cross-examination. The Labour Court also found that the workman concerned had merely passed the middle school and could hardly be said to be qualified for the performance of any of the technical duties of bio-lab assistant. The workman himself had admitted that he had no certificate regarding the training which had been undergone by him at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. 6. Adverting to the alleged non-production of the resolution of the Board of Directors, the Labour Court had considered the evidence of Dildar Singh, who deposed that there was no resolution passed permitting the workman as Bio-Lab Assistant. The explanation Civil Writ Petition No.10288 of 1998 - 5 - given by him that there were no proceedings on 24.07.1991 and Ex. W/4 itself did not contain any decision with regard to the appointment of the workman concerned, were found to be sufficient to discredit the workman's testimony to the contrary. 7. The Labour Court has found: (i) the workman did not have requisite training; (ii) he did not produce even the proof of training that would entitle him to promotional post; (iii) the qualifications and the technical knowledge necessary for Lab Assistant was not possessed by the workman; and (iv) the management witnesses affirmed that there was no resolution of Appointment Sub Committee promoting him to the higher post. All the relevant factors have been considered and a factual rendering made by the Labour Court, requires no interference in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.07.2009 sanjeev