C.W.P.No.19971 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19971 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 26.04.2010 The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani ....Petitioner(s) vs. Sh.Raj Kumar s/o Sh.Hazari Lal and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hisar. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court in para 9 of the impugned Award has itself observed that the respondent- workman could not produce any documentary evidence or oral evidence except his own statement to show and indicate that he had worked with the Department for 240 days continuously in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He contends that the onus was on the respondent- workman to prove that he had completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his alleged termination and the same having not been discharged, no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, C.W.P.No.19971 of 2009 -2- 1947 can be said to have been committed by the petitioner-Management which would entitle the respondent-workman to grant of compensation. He contends that the reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, by the learned Labour Court stood misplaced and the compensation of Rs.30,000/- granted to the respondent-workman could not be sustained. On this basis, he contends that the present writ petition be allowed and the impugned Award be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman has submitted that the petitioner-Management did not file any reply to the claim statement submitted by the workman and the statement so given by the workman was not rebutted by the Management and, therefore, the Labour Court rightly proceeded on the assumption that the workman had worked with the Management from 11.8.1989 to 1.8.2003 and thus, the Award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference. His further submission is that the matter be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication so that the workman could summon the records of the Labour Court and prove that he had completed 240 days in service in the last 12 preceding months and that there has been violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In response to this argument raised by the counsel for the respondent-workman, counsel for the petitioner-Management contends that the petitioner had through an application preferred by it, placed on record the muster rolls for the 12 preceding months from the alleged date of C.W.P.No.19971 of 2009 -3- termination of the respondent-workman which shows that not for a single day the workman had worked with the Management. He, on this basis, contends that no useful purpose would be served by even remanding the case to the Labour court for fresh adjudication by giving an opportunity to the workman to lead evidence. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In para 9 of the Award, the Labour Court has itself given a finding that the workman had failed to prove that he had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his alleged termination. In the light of the said finding, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were violated by the Management. That being the position and in view of the fact that the appointment of the workman was de hors the statutory Rules as has been held by the learned Labour Court, the workman could not have been granted the compensation as has been assessed by the Labour Court while relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, (supra) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh and another (supra) as those judgments were in the cases wherein the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act which finding, however, has gone against the respondent-workman herein. The impugned Award, therefore, granting compensation to the respondent-workman, cannot be sustained. As regards the contention of the counsel for the respondent- workman that the case may be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh C.W.P.No.19971 of 2009 -4- adjudication by giving liberty to the workman to adduce additional evidence by summoning the records, the same cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the petitioner-Management has placed on record of the writ petiton the muster-rolls for the 12 preceding months from the date of his alleged termination as (Annexure P-6) (colly) which clearly depicts that the workman did not work even for a single day with the Management. That being so, the prayer as made out by the counsel for the respondent- workman, could not be of any use to the respondent-workman and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned Award dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, is hereby set aside. April 26, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE