CWP No. 10403 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10403 of 2009 Date of decision : 14.09.2011 Jaipal Singh ....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. D.S. Adalakha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the respondent. **** RITU BAHRI, J. Challenge is to the order dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby the reference of the petitioner-workman has been declined. The petitioner-workman raised a demand notice dated 10.06.2002 upon the respondent (Annexure P-1) that he was appointed as a Turner w.e.f 05.06.1992 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2450/- per month. On 10.04.2001, the workman met with an accident and remained under treatment up to 22.04.2002. Thereafter, he was not allowed to join. On 03.06.2002. respondent No. 2 had flatly refused to take him on work and his services were terminated after giving retrenchment compensation. Before the Labour Court, the stand of the respondent was that he never worked with the Management-respondent No. 2 CWP No. 10403 of 2009 -2- as turner and he was on daily wages w.e.f 12.07.1999 and worked up to 05.04.2001 as a helper on a monthly wages of Rs.2300/-. Prior to 12.07.1999, he (petitioner-workman) was employed with one M/s S.S.P Limited. He met with an accident and showed his inability to work. He received full and final dues and left the job of his own. He was employed with the management till 22.04.2001. Mr. D.S. Adalakha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was working with the Management when he met with an accident on 10.04.2001. He informed the Management telephonically but was not allowed to join the work after he was given fitness certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act while dismissing the service of the petitioner-workman on03.06.2002. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reinstatement with full back-wages. The petitioner was paid Rs. 2442/- which was the salary for the month of April, 2001. The finding given by the Labour Court that after April, 2001, the Management had paid all the dues as the final settlement are liable to be set aside. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has referred to the award dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure P-2) and has argued that the Management had led evidence by producing Sanjay Nandi (M.W.1), Manager of M/s S.S.P Firm who produced document Ex. M1 showing that the petitioner had been appointed by his firm on 02.09.1994 (Ex.M2), which is the appointment letter. He has further showed resignation letter (Ex. M4) dated 06.05.1999. The finding given by the Labour Court that as per the demand CWP No. 10403 of 2009 -3- notice dated 10.06.2002 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was working with respondent No. 2 since 1992 is patently false. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner has joined the respondent No. 2 w.e.f 12.07.1999. Thereafter, he met with an accident and did not come for duty. He has further referred to MW-2-Dheeraj Kumar who had stated in his examination that petitioner was appointed on 12.07.1999 as daily wages helper and after accident he did not come on duty after 05.04.2001. After that he resigned and had taken his full and final dues. The workman has miserably failed to prove that he had worked with the Management w.e.f 05.06.1992 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2450/-. It has been admitted by the workman in his cross- examination that he had joined the respondent on 12.07.1999. After going through the entire file and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is not disputed that the petitioner was working with M/s S.S.P Firm on 02.09.1994 to 30.04.1999 (Ex M6). The Management had examined M.W.1 who produced all the documents regarding appointment and resignation of the workman dated 06.05.1999 (Ex. M4). The Labour Court has accepted the version of the Management witness M.W.2-Dheeraj Kumar. As per the demand notice, the services of the workman was terminated on 03.06.2002. Before the Labour Court, he has not led any evidence that he was in service for more than 240 days prior to 03.06.2002. On the other hand, the Management has led sufficient evidence to prove that the workman was employed with them w.e.f 12.07.1999 and after 09.04.2001, he did not come back for work. However, he was paid Rs. 2442/- which was the salary for the month of April, 2001. The CWP No. 10403 of 2009 -4- Management had paid all the dues as the final settlement. There was no occasion to terminate his services on 03.06.2002. The award given by the Labour Court does not required any intereference as it has been passed on the evidence that the petitioner had worked with the Management w.e.f 12.07.1999 to 09.04.2001 and had received the full and final settlement. He could not be deemed to be in duty till 03.06.2002 In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. 14.09..2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE