CWP No. 11099 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11099 of 1999 Date of decision July 30, 2009 Shri Ram s/o Sh. Sartu Ram ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and others. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. K. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Chaudhary , Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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 petitioner challenges the award rejecting the claim for reinstatement to the post of Conductor in the Transport in Haryana Roadways. The Labour Court while considering the claim of the workman held that he had offered his stint of service at Chandigarh when he was relieved on 20.9.1989 and later when he joined at Sonepat on 31.12.1989, he was retained in services up to 15.10.1990, held accepting the contention of the Management that he had not joined at Sonepat and the documents produced by him were not acceptable. The workman had relied on joining report at Sonepat and the original had also been filed that had been signed by the Duty Inspector Ishwar Singh. The doubt which the Labour Court entertained was that the Duty Inspector had himself not signed beneath his signatures. The Labour Court doubted that the Duty Inspector had been authorized by the Manager to let him serve as a Conductor at Sonepat. The identity card which was relied on by the CWP No. 11099 of 1999 2 workman that he had been working at Sonepat and he had also been issued with the identity card was not believed by the Labour Court since only the photocopy of the document had been filed and the original had not been filed. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the Management itself did not produce the records for the relevant time on a plea that the records had been burnt and therefore,the failure to produce the records ought not to be adversely commented upon. If there was a justification for the Management not to produce records, then it becomes possible for the workman to rely on secondary evidence that would include concedes his oral statement and photocopy of document. The documents which the Labour Court relied on, coupled with the oral testimony of the workman ought to have been accepted as credible evidence in the absence of primary evidence which the management could have produced they were not produced or became impossible by the fact that the documents had been burnt, secondary evidence was permissible in law. Learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner did not have any consistent case even with reference to the pleadings of his employment. He would submit that in evidence of the workman he had stated that after he was relieved at Chandigarh on 20.9.1989 he had joined at Kalka while in the claim statement and the documents relied on by him, it referred to his re-joining at Sonepat. While the matter of intervention on a factual consideration may not at all times be permissible, this Court shall see whether there has been a miscarriage of justice by rejecting the documentary evidence and veracity of documents and whether it was unjustified in the absence of original records which had been lost, even the oral evidence placed by the workman. If the workman had stated that he had worked at Sonepat and he was permitted to join by Ishwar Singh, Duty Inspector and he had also signed the document, the CWP No. 11099 of 1999 3 Labour Court could not have placed the burden further on the workman to establish the same by examining the Sub Inspector. After all he was an employee of the Management and the evidence must have been secured by the Management to discredit the joining report or the identity card that he had produced. 3. I, therefore, reject the finding of the Labour Court that he had not joined at Sonepat and he had not completed 240 days of service. By a proper reckoning from the date when he joined at Sonepat from 5.1.1989 to 15.1.1990 with two intervals and considering again the number of days when he had worked within 12 months prior to 15.10.1990, he had completed 240 days and therefore, termination of service without following the procedure under Section 25-F was unjustified. Even for non- compliance with the statutory requirement,of Section 25-F, the workman cannot still have the benefit of reinstatement, in view of the fact that in matters of public appointment governed by specific rules relating to recruitment, it was not possible to direct reinstatement unless he had a right to the post. Admittedly he had been engaged as a daily rated worker and his engagement was purely temporary and fortuitous. Under the circumstances, appropriate relief for the workman to compensate for the non-compliance of notice under Section 25-F would be by directing the respondent-Management to give a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the workman. It shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the said sum shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and modified to the extent indicated above. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 30, 2009 archana