C.W.P. No.14702 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14702 of 2000 Date of Decision:02.09.2009 Sujjan Singh .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The award put in challenge before this Court is a complaint by the workman that he had been unlawfully terminated from service. The workman's contention was that he had been working as a Beldar from 01.10.1995 and he was working till March 1997 when he was illegally terminated. The contention on behalf of the management was that since its financial position was not sound and as per a policy decision taken, all the workmen were being terminated after notice issued on 28.02.1997 and retrenchment compensation had also been calculated and given on 28.03.1997. The workman had received it without demur and that he was not entitled to challenge the termination as bad. 2. In the course of evidence, it appears that the workman C.W.P. No.14702 of 2000 -2- contended that he was working upto March 1997 and a suggestion was put to him in the cross-examination which was denied by the workman that he had been terminated in February, 1997. The management witness gave evidence also to the effect that he had been terminated in February 1997 but admitted that the retrenchment compensation had also been given on 28.03.1997. The Labour Court, however, held that in view of the fact that retrenchment compensation had been taken, he could not complain of termination as bad and rejected the reference. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the workman states that the retrenchment compensation had not been sent simultaneously with actual termination and if there was a delay, it would not amount to compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel states that if the termination and the payment are not contemporaneous, the termination itself will be taken to be bad. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, would respond to the contention by stating that the workman's case itself was that he was working till March, 1997 and the termination took effect only in March when the retrenchment compensation was also paid. He would also urge that the Labour Court had acted merely on a wrong evidence, which was let on behalf of the management that the workman had been terminated in February, 1997. 4. I have no difficulty in accepting the contention that the payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act shall ryme with the actual date of termination and there cannot be a hiatus that would put the date of payment C.W.P. No.14702 of 2000 -3- beyond the date of termination and if it happens, it has to be held that there is no proper compliance of Section 25-F. It is a strange situation where each party relies on the statement of other party to be the truth. The workman stated that although he had worked till March, 1997, he was said to have been terminated in February, 1997, as per the suggestion of the management and the management contended that although the management witness stated that he was terminated in February, 1997, as per even the workman's contention, the termination took place only in March, 1997. The case could only be decided on the pleadings on the basis of which there could be evidence. It is possible that in the cross-examination the evidence is shown to be wrong but if the evidence follows a particular pleading that itself cannot be shown to be wrong by the person who makes the statement. In my view, the workman could have no relief, since substantial justice has been done by the payment of compensation. The law that is evoked that the payment of retrenchment compensation to be contemporaneous with termination is only on the basis that a workman is not left high and dry while in the job market hunting for one. The workman had stated in the demand notice and claim statement that he had been terminated in March, 1997 and the compensation was also paid only in March, 1997. 5. A faint contention was also made by the learned counsel that there had been a short payment of compensation which according to him ought to have been Rs.2323/- when the actual amount that was paid was only Rs.2126.40. Such a contention had not been taken even before the Labour Court and it shall not be permissible for the C.W.P. No.14702 of 2000 -4- workman to complain of such shortfall here before this Court for the first time. Such a contention is therefore rejected as devoid of merit. 6. There is no reason for any interference. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 02, 2009 Pankaj*