C.W.P. No.4027 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4027 of 2001 Date of Decision: 22.10.2009 Gurdev Singh .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer & others ...Respondents Present: Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Garg, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 award under challenge is a rejection of reference sought at the instance of a workman that he had been terminated from service without complying with the statutory mandates of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, he joined service on 01.02.1989 at the Market Committee, Abohar and he had been terminated from service on 27.11.1989. The management contended that the appointment was to be done only with the concurrence by the Board and such concurrence when it was sought, was rejected by the Board on the ground that the relevant rules, which were applicable barred appointment of casual workers on daily wage basis. The appointment of the petitioner on daily wage basis was, therefore, contrary to the rules C.W.P. No.4027 of 2001 -2- and therefore, the sanction was not accorded. It was the further contention of the management that he had not worked upto 27.11.1989 but his services had been terminated on 13.09.1989 itself which meant that he had not completed 240 days of service to secure any relief before the Labour Court. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the management and rejected the plea of the workman. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman contended that as regards the rejection of approval from the Board, it was a needless formality for, the Appointing Authority was only the Market Committee and therefore, the approval sought through the Mandi Board was unnecessary. He further agreed that the contention of the management that he had worked only upto 13.09.1989 was wrong and a certificate issued by the Presiding Officer at an election booth that the workman had been on duty as a Polling Officer on 21.11.1989 and again from 25.11.1989 to 26.11.1989 was evidence for his continuance in employment till 27.11.1989. According to him, therefore, there was proof available to state that he had completed 240 days and the termination of service, which was effected was contrary to law. The further grievance expressed on behalf of the workman was that even for the period when he had rendered his services over nearly seven and half months, he had not been paid his wages. 4. As regards the contention that the Appointing Authority C.W.P. No.4027 of 2001 -3- was only the Market Committee and therefore, the approval of the Mandi Board was not necessary, it is seen even from the order of appointment that the Market Committee had appointed him only subject to approval of the Mandi Board. It shall not, therefore, be permissible for the workman to contend that the approval was not necessary. The reasons for withholding the approval is seen from the proceedings of the Administrator, Punjab Mandi Board (Annexure P-9) dated 06.04.1989 that refers to Rule 8 of the Punjab Market Committees (Class III) Rules, notified on 27.01.1989 that no official could be employed in the Market Committee on daily wages/ad hoc basis. The learned counsel sought to pick holes on the proceedings of the Mandi Board to refuse the approval by stating that the notification of the rules were made only on 31.01.1989 and this was pointed out also in a communication sent by the Administrator, Market Committee that the appointment had been made even prior to the publication of the notification and therefore, the rules were not applicable. I am unable to accept such a contention in view of the fact that even the order of appointment states that the appointment was to take effect only from 01.02.1989. The petitioner is not, therefore, entitled to contend that he had been employed even on a date earlier to the date when the notification of the rules were made. 5. The compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would have been still necessary if the workman had shown to have worked for 240 days. That would again depend on C.W.P. No.4027 of 2001 -4- whether the workman's services had been terminated on 13.09.1989 and he had worked upto 27.11.1989 as contended by the workman. The only reliance on which the workman could effectively make, was the attendance chit given by the Presiding Officer on 26.11.1989. The learned counsel wants me to make an inference that he could not have officiated as a Polling Officer in the parliamentary election unless he had the concurrence of his employer and that his services with the employer continued till that date. If this document had been on a stand alone basis, perhaps it may have been possible to make such an inference but the learned counsel appearing for the management refers to Ex.M- 10 and M-11, which refer to communications made by the petitioner himself referring to the date of termination as 13.09.1989. The explanation offered by the counsel for the workman is that it merely refers to the date of the purported letter of termination and it did not mean that he had actually been terminated on that day. The proof of continuance of service on 26.11.1989 cannot be assumed on the basis of attendance chit issued by a Presiding Officer at a polling booth. It should have been available through the attendance register with the management itself and that had not been sought to be produced. In the light of his own statement made through Ex.M-10 and M- 11, I am of the view that the workman ought not to be permitted to contend that he had worked beyond 13.09.1989. If the workman had not even completed 240 days, I am afraid, he can C.W.P. No.4027 of 2001 -5- have no grievance of any violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The action of the petitioner complaining of unlawful termination ought to, therefore, fail for the reason that his appointment was not approved as being contrary to rules and it is also proved that the workman had not completed even 240 days of service. 6. As regards the plea that the workman had not been paid wages from the date of appointment on 01.02.1989 to 13.09.1989, there is no contention on behalf of the management that they have made the payment. It is not their contention that they did not avail the services of the workman. It is one thing to state that appointment had not been approved but quite another to even deny to the workman what he was entitled to. It shall be on quantum meruit principle that the management cannot deny to the workman the salary for services had and received. The workman shall be entitled to his salary which a person belonging to the category of his employment was entitled to from 01.02.1989 upto 13.09.1989. This amount shall be paid with interest @ 9% from the date when the amount fell due till date. 7. The award of the Labour Court is confirmed except for the modification with reference to the salary as granted above. The writ petition is dismissed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 22, 2009 Pankaj*