IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5043 of 2002 Date of decision: 27.11.2009 Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (HAFED), Sector 5, Panchkula ....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Panipat and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ---- 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 order under challenge is a direction for reinstatement of a Chowkidar, who claimed that he had been appointed in April 1998 and that he was retained in service upto March 1999. The contention of the workman was that he was employed at Jind upto November 1998 but the management, with a view to ensure that the workman did not complete 240 days, transferred him to Safidon and entered his attendance in the name of another person to conceal evidence. According to him, he had completed 240 days of service and the termination which was effected was not in compliance of the statutory requirement under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently the termination was bound to Civil Writ Petition No.5043 of 2002 - 2 - be regarded as illegal and he should be granted the relief of reinstatement. 2. The management denied the alleged continuous engagement of the workman and stated that he had been employed on a contract initially for a period of 29 days which was extended for some time, but he had never completed 240 days of continuous service. The Labour Court rejected the plea of contractual employment and that the services stood terminated by the completion of the contract period. It reasoned that there was no proof that the workman was employed only for a particular period or for a period for which the work was available. While examining the number of days of work which the workman had put in, the Labour Court noticed that the attendance register for November contained some change in the name which was suspected as deliberately manipulated by the management to conceal evidence of the continuous engagement. The Labour Court therefore found, even in the absence of definite evidence of the continuous engagement of the workman till November 1998, that the workman ought to have worked in November in full and counted the entire length of period for November 1998 as going to prove the workman's alleged engagement. The workman still fell short of 240 days and therefore, the Labour Court applied October 2nd and 15th of August which were the public holidays as also the days when the workman must have been treated as having been employed and reckoned the workman as having been completed 240 days of service. By such a reasoning, the Labour Court upheld the contention of the workman. Civil Writ Petition No.5043 of 2002 -3 - 3. The learned counsel appearing for the management pointed out that even as per the contention of the workman, the workman had not completed work throughout the period of November 1998 and that he was transferred from Jind to Safidon on 05.11.1998 where he was employed till 18.03.1999. The assumption of the Labour Court that the workman must have completed the entire span of November at Jind was therefore clearly unjustified. I have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the management that the Labour Court was in error in stretching the period of engagement upto November 1998 at Jind which was not even the contention of the workman. I requested the learned counsel to read through the evidence of the workman before the Labour Court about the period of engagement from November 1998 to March 1999, in view of the fact that the Labour Court has not considered anywhere in its judgment about the so-called engagement of the management at Safidon. From the evidence, it is seen that the workman has given definite evidence about his transfer and employment at Safidon, which he stated, was in continuance of his initial engagement by the same employer. There had been no cross- examination on this aspect relating to the evidence of the engagement of the workman upto March 1999. If the engagement is to be counted from April 1998 to March 1999, the workman would have completed 240 days. I find therefore that the workman had 240 days of continuous service. I confirm the finding of the Labour Court about the workman as having completed 240 days of continuous service, although on a different line of reasoning. Civil Writ Petition No.5043 of 2002 - 4 - 4. It is stated from the bar that the workman was subsequently engaged in service and he has been still in service. Evidently it is a case where the work is available for the unskilled worker like a Chowkidar where the employment means everything in his life. There is no need to deny him the relief. The Labour Court has already granted to him the relief with full back wages. It is also sated that the workman has recovered full back wages. I do not propose to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. I place on record my sincere appreciation to the counsel for the petitioner who fairly read the entire statement of the witnesses to secure to the workman what was due to him. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.11.2009 sanjeev