Civil Writ Petition No.3015 of 1992 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 13, 2010 Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Chandigarh ...Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hissar & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rahul Deswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation has filed this writ petition to challenge the award dated 11.10.1991 (Annexure P-3) whereby Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hissar has held the termination of the respondent- workman to be illegal and has further directed that the respondent- workman be reinstated. The respondent-workman was appointed as a Dairyman Civil Writ Petition No.3015 of 1992 : 2 : and he joined the service of the petitioner-Federation on 21.8.1981. He claims to have worked continuously. The services of the respondent-workman were dispensed with without any notice on 8.6.1982, in violation of the provisions of the Act. The respondent- workman objected to his termination when he was again taken back in service in January, 1983. Shortly thereafter, on 9.4.1983 his services were again discontinued but still, the petitioner was again asked to join the duty and continued to work upto 5.3.1984. His services were again dispensed with in an illegal manner when he raised a demand notice and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages. In response to the demand notice, the petitioner- Federation filed a written statement by raising a preliminary objection that the respondent-workman had not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. Stand further was that the workman was employed on daily wages and his services were dis-continued. Plea that the termination was in violation of the provisions of law was also denied, besides pleading that the claim as raised was barred by limitation. Both the parties led evidence and on appreciation thereof, the Labour Court found that the respondent-workman had joined the service in August, 1981 and his services were terminated in June, 1983. Neither any notice was served to him nor he was given any compensation. On the basis of documentary evidence placed on record by the Management, the version given by the respondent- workman was said to have been substantiated. Exh.M-6 revealed that the respondent-workman had worked for 289 days during the period August, 1981 to June, 1982. It Civil Writ Petition No.3015 of 1992 : 3 : is also seen that after a period of about six months, the petitioner was again asked to join, which he did from January, 1983 to April, 1983 and yet again from October, 1983 to March, 1984. On this basis, it was found that the respondent-workman could not have been sent out of service without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. Reference is made to the evidence given by Shri S.M.Saran, Shift Manager (MW-1), who conceded during cross- examination that whenever there was scope for induction of new persons, the chance was given to those already retrenched. This witness had conceded that because of filing cases in the Labour Court, these persons were not taken into job thereafter. The Labour Court was justified in drawing an inference that the respondent- workman was entitled to re-employment and the same was denied to him because he had approached the Labour Court. The Court has accordingly noticed that only fault on the part of the workman was that he had approached the court when his legal rights were denied. Accordingly, the action of the Management was held un-justified in terminating the services of the petitioner without following the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner-Federation today submits that the respondent-workman was employed on temporary basis and had not completed service of 240 days. He accordingly submits that the workman would not have any right either of reinstatement or of continuity in service, he being a daily wager, who was employed on Civil Writ Petition No.3015 of 1992 : 4 : the requirement of work. This submission may not be available with the petitioner. It is clear from the record that the respondent-workman was reinstated on 9.4.1992 and thereafter he has continuously worked. The justification as offered by the counsel for the petitioner that instead of paying wages under Section 17-B of the Act, the Federation had decided to take work from the respondent-workman would rather support the case of the respondent-workman. It would clearly show that there was a work and it is still available, which is continuous and against which the respondent-workman has been now employed. He has continued to work with the petitioner- Federation from 18 years. Now asking him to leave the service, at this stage, would be wholly unfair. It would also show that there is a work, against which the respondent-workman was taken back and is working. This would also clearly reveal that the observations made by the Labour Court were justified, when it was noticed that those workmen, who dared to approach the Court, were not taken back in service. This action of the petitioner-Federation would not only be illegal, unjust and unfair, but would also show an unfair labour practice. An opportunity was given to the counsel for the petitioner to have instructions to continue the respondent-workman as it would be now unfair to disturb the arrangement after expiry of 18 years or so, during which time the petitioner has voluntary taken work from the respondent-workman. The petitioner has still refused to see reasons. This attitude of the petitioner-Federation cannot be appreciated. Having taken work from the respondent-workman for over 18 years, the petitioner is wanting to send the workman out of Civil Writ Petition No.3015 of 1992 : 5 : service without any justification. There is no legal infirmity, which would call for interference in the impugned award. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE