LPA No.373 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: LPA No.373 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: April 22, 2009 STATE OF PUNJAB ...PETITIONER VERSUS MELA SINGH & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MS. AMBIKA LUTHRA, AAG, PUNJAB FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. MANISH KUMAR SINGLA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The Management has filed this Letters Patent Appeal impugning the award dated 7.4.1992, passed by the Labour Court, Patiala and the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2003, vide which termination of the workman has been held to be illegal being violative of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and the Management has been directed to reinstate the workman. Briefly the facts of the case are the respondent-workman was working as Chowkidar with the petitioner-Management from 27.12.1984 to 27.8.1985, when his services were terminated without issuance of any notice, charge-sheet or enquiry. Prior to this period also it was claimed by the workman that he had served the Food & Supplies Department in the capacity of Chowkidar. LPA No.373 of 2003 -2- Before the Labour Court it was averred by the workman that he had completed more than 240 days of service without any break and as no notice was issued to him, therefore, termination of his services were violative of Section 25F of the Act. On the other hand, the Management examined Sh. Gurmajor Singh, Inspector, Food & Supplies Department as MW-1 who also deposed that the workman had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that the workman had earlier also worked with the Management for a period of two years and that vide Ex.M1 the workman had served for more than 240 days in a calendar year. On the basis of the evidence led by the respective parties, the termination of the services of the workman were held to be illegal and he was ordered to be reinstated in service. The writ petition filed by the Management was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgement dated 25.2.2003, wherein it was held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days continuously. The Department filed Letters Patent Appeal against the said order which was dismissed. However, in SLP the order passed by the LPA Bench was set aside and the High Court was directed to decide the LPA afresh. A perusal of the impugned award as well as the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge clearly shows that the workman had worked for more than 240 days, i.e. from 27.12.1984 to 27.8.1985. He had also served the Department for two years prior to his fresh appointment on 27.12.1984. Apart from the above, a perusal of the statement of Sh.Gurmajor Singh, Inspector, Food & Supplies Department who appeared as MW1 and the record of service of the workman Ex.M1 shows that the LPA No.373 of 2003 -3- workman had worked continuously from the period 27.12.1984 to 27.8.1985. From the aforementioned facts it is clear that the workman had worked for more than 240 days continuously and hence termination of the services of the workman without giving him any retrenchment compensation or any notice or holding any enquiry was clearly illegal. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere in the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge. However, it is noticed that the workman has not worked with the Department since 27.8.1985, as he was never taken back in service. The petitioner also did not pursue his case with regard to reinstatement, despite the fact that no stay orders were granted by the High Court. The petitioner also did not pursue his application under Section 17B of the Act. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages since 27.8.1985 onwards. Letters Patent Appeal disposed of. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE April 22, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE