C.W.P. No.6143 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6143 of 1992 Date of Decision : 20.04.2011 The Ambala District Milk Producers Coop. Union Limited …Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 29.11.1991 (Annexure P-4). The Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner had appointed the private respondent on daily wages at the Chilling Centre, Jagadhari. Thereafter on 03.06.1987, the Manager of the Chilling Centre terminated his services. The private respondent C.W.P. No.6143 of 1992 -2- raised a demand notice against the termination of his services taking the ground that he was appointed by the Chief Executive Officer and thus the Manager did not have the competence to remove him from service. He also took the plea that the order was unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, unjustified and not binding. In reply, the plea taken was that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was passed by the Chief Executive Officer but was only communicated by the Manager. The Labour Court allowed the reference and granted reinstatement and continuity of service of the private respondent with full back-wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the workman had admittedly not completed 240 days and, therefore, he is not entitled to the protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. No doubt the minimum period of 240 days has been prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but it cannot be said that a workman who had worked for less than 240 days has no protection under the Industrial Disputes Act as a whole. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that merely because the Chief Executive Officer had appointed the private respondent it would not mean that the Manager had no competence to remove him from service. In my opinion, this question need not be gone into because the main reason which weighed with the Labour Court was the fact that a plea had been taken during evidence that the Chilling Centre at Jagadhari where private respondent was C.W.P. No.6143 of 1992 -3- employed had been shut down and the services of the private respondent were not required any more. The Labour Court, however, found that after shutting down the Chilling Centre at Jagadhari the same was opened at Yamuna Nagar and held that the private respondent should have been appointed in the Chilling Centre at Yamuna Nagar since Jagadhari and Yamuna Nagar are twin cities. In my opinion, this argument outweighs all the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. No other point has been argued. The act of the petitioner in terminating the services of the private respondent on the ground that one Chilling Centre had been shut down and not giving him further opportunity to seek employment in the alternate Centre in the immediate vicinity cannot be termed to be a fair action. In the circumstances, this petition is liable for dismissal. I, however, find that even though the operation of the impugned award was stayed the private respondent-workman never moved an application for grant of wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus a presumption has been drawn that during this entire period he was gainfully employed. Consequently, even while dismissing this writ petition and upholding the impugned award dated 29.11.1991, I decline the benefit of back-wages to the private respondent. He would be entitled to all the other benefits granted to him under the award. ( AJAY C.W.P. No.6143 of 1992 -4- TEWARI ) April 20, 2011 JUDGE ashish