CWP No.2990 of 2001 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2990 of 2001 Date of Decision 25.11.2009 Raja Ram ..... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents 2. CWP No.3063 of 2001 State of Punjab ..... Petitioner V/s The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bathinda & another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. Present: Mr.P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab. *** K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The Award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement is the subject of challenge at the instance of Management in CWP No.3063 of 2001. The workman has filed CWP No.2990 of 2001 for back-wages denied to him. The contention of the workman was that he was continuously engaged in service of Management from 01.10.1976 till he was terminated on 31.03.1988. The written statement was laconic in that it merely stated that the workman had not worked during August, 1988 and that he had actually only 199 days of service. Since the termination was illegal according to the workman and the Management has contended that he had only 199 days of service, at the directions of the Court, the witnesses produced the attendance register which showed that the workman had CWP No.2990 of 2001 -2- worked for 341 days during 12 months prior to August, 1988. Even a particular month when it was denied that the workman was not working, the document produced by the witnesses betrayed the falsity of the contention of the Management and proved that the workman had worked also in August, 1988. 2. According to the Management witnesses, no notice or compensation had been given and hence the Court found that there had been a violation of statutory provision of Section 25(F) and directed reinstatement. The learned counsel contended that there was no proof that the workman was working from 1976. It was also contended that the workman did not have a permanent job and therefore, the provision for reinstatement was not tenable. Both the contentions, in my view, are not correct, for the Court was inclined to direct the production of record from the Management for the period which in its view was relevant for determination whether workman had 240 days of continuous service prior to termination from service. Records for the previous years were not produced and if 240 days of continuous service prior to termination from service was seen as the relevant period for consideration to decide whether the termination was proper or not, the non-production of records of earlier years were of no consequence. Again, the issue whether the workman had been offered any permanent job was also irrelevant, unless it was to be examined whether the contract of employment provided for a particular period or was contingent on the happening of any event which would itself terminate the service and qualify for an exception as provided under Section 2(oo) (bb) and whether the termination operated not as retrenchment for the person to claim the benefit under Section 25F. That was not the contention of the CWP No.2990 of 2001 -3- Management. The conclusions on both counts viz., the number of days of service and the effect of the termination in contravention of Section 25F to deserve the relief of reinstatement are therefore correct. 3. There was an averment in the claim statement that the workman had been unemployed but the Labour Court has completely denied the back wages. If a person who was working as a Chowkidar, which is not a skilled employment, some work should have been available to fend for himself for daily necessities. The rejection of full back wages cannot also be accepted, since the termination effected was not due to any misconduct or any act that could be attributed against the workman. If the termination was bad the workman could not be wholly denied the wages for the period when he was forced not to work. The workman shall be entitled for 50% back wages. 4. Civil Writ Petition No.3063 of 2001 titled State of Punjab V/s The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another is dismissed. Civil Writ Petition No.2990 of 2001 titled Raja Ram V/s State of Punjab and others is partly allowed for 50% back wages as directed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. 25.11.2009 (K.KANNAN) shamsher JUDGE