CWP No. 14850 of 2000. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14850 of 2000. [O&M] Date of Decision: 13th October, 2011. Anita & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate Versus Presiding Officer & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners are wife and daughter of deceased Niranjan Kumar who had raised an industrial dispute against his alleged illegal retrenchment and which was answered against him by the Labour Court-II, Faridabad vide the impugned award dated 12.05.1999. [2]. The case of the deceased – workman was that he was appointed as a Chowkidar on 11.06.1994 in the Housing Board, Haryana at Faridabad and his services were illegally terminated on 18.06.1995 without paying any retrenchment compensation even when he had completed more than 240 days' service preceding the date of retrenchment. [3]. The Labour Court has answered the reference against the workman after holding that he failed to get the Muster Rolls summoned to prove that he had completed 240 days' service prior to his alleged retrenchment. The workman meanwhile passed away CWP No. 14850 of 2000. ::-2-:: leaving behind the petitioners as his legal representatives, who have assailed the award passed by the Labour Court against the workman. [4]. The solitary question as to whether or not the deceased workman had completed 240 days' continuous service before he was retrenched can be effectively answered in his favour on the basis of the pleadings only. In Paras No. 1 and 2 of the writ petition, the petitioners have averred as follows:- “That the petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Niranjan Kumar and petitioner No. 2 is daughter of Niranjan Kumar. Niranjan Kumar deceased was appointed as Chowkidar on 11.6.1994 by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and his services were terminated on 18.6.1995 by the respondents No. 2 and 3 without any show cause notice. While terminating his services, no charge-sheet was issued to him nor any inquiry was held . Thus, the termination of the services of Niranjan Kumar was illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, Niranjan Kumar raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice on respondents No. 2 and 3. The dispute was referred to the respondent No. 1. That after passing of the impugned award, Niranjan Kumar expired and hence the present writ petition is being filed through his legal representatives. 2. That Niranjan Kumar submitted claim statement before the respondent No. 2 stating therein that he was appointed as Chowkidar on 11.6.94 and his services were terminated on 18.6.1995 by respondent No. 3 in an illegal and arbitrary manner without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It was further mentioned in the claim statement that after terminating his services the management appointed another Chowkidar in his place and the Junior persons working as Chowkidar have been retained which is violation of CWP No. 14850 of 2000. ::-3-:: Section 25-G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. A true copy of the claim statement is attached herewith as Annexure P-1”. [Emphasis applied]. [5]. Respondents No. 2 and3 have filed their reply/affidavit dated 30.04.2001 and in reply to Paras No. 1 and 2, thus say as follows:- “1&2. Contents of Para Nos.1 and 2 of the writ petition are wrong and, thus, denied. It is, however, respectfully submitted that the workman was temporarily engaged for the work of Chowkidar/Mali/Beldar as per the requirement at the particular time by the respondents purely on daily wage basis for the specific work of construction of houses being carried out at Sector 23, Faridabad, as such, he was neither appointed against any sanctioned post nor any formal appointment letter etc. was ever issued to the workman. In this regard, it may further be submitted that since the workman was engaged on casual basis and only as per the need and requirement of work use to arise, there was no question of terminating his appointment or termination of services, since he was a daily wage labourer and as such when he was required to work as Beldar for some time, he abandon the work in the month of May 1995 and thereafter never came back for work and as such was never assigned any work. The averments regarding termination of services are, therefore, being vehemently denied”. [Emphasis applied] [6]. It may, thus, be seen that the respondents have no where disputed that the deceased was employed on 11.6.1994 and he worked till 18.06.1995. It would further be seen that the only plea taken by the respondents is that the deceased had abandoned employment. No such plea was taken or proved before the Labour Court. On the other hand, the averments made in Para Nos. 1 and 2 CWP No. 14850 of 2000. ::-4-:: of the writ petition, namely, that respondents No. 2 and 3 did not dispute before the Labour Court that he had not completed 240 days in service, has also not been controverted and the averments to this effect have been admitted. [7]. In the light of these admitted facts, there can indeed be no other conclusion but to hold that the workman had completed more than 240 days' continuous service before he was retrenched on 18.06.1995. Since non-payment of retrenchment compensation is also not in dispute, the only irresistible conclusion would be that the retrenchment of the workman was totally illegal being contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [8]. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned award dated 12.05.1999 is set aside and the reference is answered in favour of the workman. The workman shall be deemed to have continued in service till his death though with 50% back wages, which shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months. [9]. This order shall not preclude the petitioners to claim the relief of regularization of services of the deceased employee on the basis of his 'continuous service' till he died and/or further consequential benefits like 'family pension' and other service benefits etc., as per the Rules/Regulations. It is further directed that in the event of delay beyond three months, the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of 50% back wages of the deceased workman. [10]. Disposed of. Dasti. October 13, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE