IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13482 of 2001 Date of decision:07.10.2009 Randhir Singh son of Moman Ram, Ex-Mate, PWD, B&R Division No.2, Kurukshetra. ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others. ...Respondents Present: Mr. Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 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 in challenge is a rejection of a reference sought at the instance of the workman, who claimed that he had completed 240 days of continuous service, but his services were terminated illegally on 01.11.1998. The contention of the management was that the workman had himself voluntarily abandoned the services. The Labour Court found that the workman had completed 240 days of service but observed by looking at entries in the muster roll that he had been working on specific projects. The work had ceased and, therefore, he could not have been continued in employment. The Labour Court also held that the termination itself did not operate as retrenchment to invite the applicability of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Civil Writ Petition No.13482 of 2001 - 2 - 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman states that the workman had issued a notice immediately after his services were terminated and that itself showed the conduct that he had not abandoned the services. His further contention was that the observation of the Labour Court that the workman had been engaged on specific projects and that he had not been continued in employment only because the work was not available, was a perverse finding which had no basis in either the pleadings of the management or the evidence let in by the management. He referred to the evidence of the witnesses with reference to the availability of the work. WW-1 in his chief examination had stated that “I have completed 240 days before my termination. There was work with department when my services were terminated...”. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination that the work was not available. Again in the evidence of the management apart from contenting that the workman had left the job of his own record, nothing had been brought out that the work was not available. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the management Shri Nalwa refers to the fact that the muster roll contained details of the name of the work and the finding of the Labour Court that there was no work available was perfectly justified. In my view, the finding cannot be supported. If there had been a contention by a management that he had been engaged only for some specific works and after the completion of that work, the work ceased, then it should have been possible for the Labour Court to examine such a contention. A muster roll is bound to contain the details of the work and it is, therefore, nothing unusual that Civil Writ Petition No.13482 of 2001 - 3 - some specific works are mentioned. There ought to have been evidence that the workman himself had been initially appointed only for such particular work and after the completion of the work, the engagement was not possible. The Labour Court's finding that he had been engaged on a project and that after the completion of that work as found in the muster roll, his services were not necessary, is a finding which is made dehors any pleadings pr evidence on the side of the management. Under the circumstances, the finding rendered by the Labour Court that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the services is set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State states that the termination had taken place more than 10 years back and the length of service of the workman himself was very short for even less than a year and even if all the findings were to be held in favour of the workman relating to the alleged illegality of termination of service, still he shall not be found entitled to reinstatement. If, at all, only compensation could be given. While it would be a matter of discretion for a Court to apply that instead of reinstatement, compensation would be appropriated, I am of the view that if the termination is found to be bad, unless there is specific evidence available that there is no work to be entrusted there is no substitute of reinstatement. I have held in judgment in Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another Versus Shri Ram Chander and another- 2009(5) SLR 649 that in reinstatement and work alone, there is scope for development for a nation and not in mere compensation amounts. The view that I have taken, I am convinced, does not run counter to Civil Writ Petition No.13482 of 2001 - 4 - any decisions of higher forums and accords with the scheme of Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The workman had not been actually working and in my view, it would subserve justice if the workman is allowed only 50 % back wages. The workman shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. (K.KANNAN) 07.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev