CWP No. 3392 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3392 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.03.2010 Municipal Council, Sanaur ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent No. 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Patiala (Annexure P-1), vide which on an application moved under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respondent No. 2- workman was held entitled to receive Rs. 11,221/- from the petitioner- Muncipal Council, Sanaur on account of the wages for the period from 01.08.1993 to 30.06.1994 @ Rs. 1021/- per month. The said amount was CWP No. 3392 of 2010 2 directed to be paid to the workman within three months' of the passing of the order, failing which the applicant was held entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of passing of the order till its realization. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is nothing on the record to suggest that respondent No. 2-workman had worked with the Municipal Council during the said period. He contends that the service of the workman was terminated on 31.07.1993 and, therefore, he cannot be held entitled to the benefit of the period he has alleged to have worked with the Municipal Council i.e. 01.08.1993 to 30.06.1994. He contends that there is no evidence on record showing that he had worked with the Municipal Council, therefore, the Award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that on an application moved under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the petitioner-Municipal Council as well as respondent No. 2-workman had produced their records and evidence. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the service of the workman was not terminated on 31.07.1993 as was alleged by the Municipal Council as the Municipal Council had failed to place on record any document in support of this contention nor any evidence to that effect was led by the Municipal Council. His contention is that the Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, had given a categoric finding that the workman was entitled to get back wages for the period of 01.08.1993 to 30.06.1994 @ 1021/- per month. He contends thus that as the workman had worked with the petitioner during the said period and no evidence was led by the Municipal Council contrary to this assertion made by the workman, the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. CWP No. 3392 of 2010 3 I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. On the very first day when the case came up for hearing before this Court, counsel for the petitioner had sought time to file an affidavit as to whether respondent No. 2-workman has, as a matter of fact, worked from 01.08.1993 to 30.06.1994 with the Municipal Council i.e. the petitioner for which he had claimed benefit of wages under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Mr. Mittal has, in the Court today, shown his inability on the part of the official that he is unable to file a specific affidavit to this effect. That being so, the findings, as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be interfered with, when on an opportunity given by this Court to contradict the findings given by the Labour Court by way of an affidavit, the official has not been able to give an affidavit to that effect. The records further fortifies the fact that the workman-respondent No. 2 had, as a matter of fact, worked with the petitioner-Municipal Council. The workman, therefore, has been rightly granted the wages from 01.08.1993 to 30.06.1994, for the period for which he had worked with the Municipal Council. In the light of the order passed by the Labour Court holding the workman entitled to the wages for the period above-mentioned on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the said finding cannot be faulted with and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 09, 2010 pj CWP No. 3392 of 2010 4