IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11720 of 2008. Date of Decision : April 20, 2009. The Biran Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Biran, District Bhiwani. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 05.10.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent No.2-workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential service benefits including 50% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice i.e. 02.07.2004 till the publication of the award and full wages thereafter till reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that respondent No. 2-workman was appointed against the scheme. He contends that since the scheme has come to an end, services of the respondent No. 2-workman are no more required with the petitioner-management and therefore, his services were terminated. He contends that the scheme under which he was C.W.P. No. 11720 of 2008. appointed, no more exists and the tractor on which he was appointed is not in working condition, the respondent No. 2-workman cannot be reinstated in service. This contention of counsel for the petitioner-management has been contested by counsel for the respondent No. 2-workman. He contends that the appointment letter which has been placed on record as Annexure-P-5 by the petitioner-management, does not specify that the workman was appointed under the scheme or any other specified term. He contends that the stand which has been taken by the petitioner-management before this Court, was not taken by the petitioner-management before the Labour Court. Neither has it come in the pleadings nor has any of the witnesses, who had appeared before the Labour Court, stated that the employment of the respondent No. 2-workman was made under the scheme. Counsel for the petitioner-management relies upon para-4 of the written statement, filed by the petitioner-management before the Labour Court wherein it has been stated that the employment of the respondent No. 2-workman was of casual nature and not of permanent nature and only on experimental basis, as the tractor failed to give benefit to the Society, rather it was causing loss, therefore, it was parked in the garage and the same was to be disposed of in accordance with rules, norms and by laws. This contention of counsel for petitioner-management, cannot be accepted as this does not show that the respondent No. 2-workman was appointed against a scheme as asserted by counsel for the petitioner-management. No document has been placed on record which would justify the stand taken by the petitioner-management before this Court. Perusal of the award would show that the stand which is now being taken before this Court by the petitioner-management was neither -2- C.W.P. No. 11720 of 2008. pressed into service nor was such an assertion made by any of the witnesses who had appeared before the Labour Court while giving their evidence. The appointment letter dated 12.08.1998, copy whereof has been produced as Annexure-P-5, which is a resolution passed by the petitioner-management, does not indicate that the respondent No. 2-workman was appointed as a driver against any scheme. What it states is that the respondent No. 2- workman has been appointed as a tractor driver at fixed rate of Rs. 1,800/- per month as he fulfills the requirement for appointment to the said post. In this view of the matter, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 20, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes/No. -3-