IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4759 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 26, 2009. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jammu. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-workman holding therein that the termination of services of the respondent-workman was not in consonance with the Industrial Disputes Act. He has only been granted compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, which has to be paid within a period of one month, failing which he would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8 per cent. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are not sustainable as on the post he was appointed, a regular incumbent has been appointed and therefore, he would not be entitled to any relief as he has worked with the petitioner- management for only two months. C.W.P. No. 4759 of 2009. A perusal of the award would indicate that the respondent- workman was able to prove by way of producing photocopies of the cheques which clearly showed that the work was assigned to him and he was being put to work apart from the period, which the petitioner-management accepted that he has worked for two months i.e. January, 1992, and March, 1992. The Tribunal had issued directions to the petitioner-management to produce the originals of those cheques but the petitioner-management failed to produce those documents, therefore, an adverse inference has been taken against the petitioner-management and the cheques had been accepted as authentic as the signatures on the photocopies of the cheques which were transactions between the petitioner-management and the bank, has not been denied. In view of the documentary evidence produced by the respondent- workman, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the respondent- workman has put in 240 days of service with the petitioner-management 12 months preceding to his date of termination. Further on the basis of the evidence, the Labour Court has given a finding that the respondent-workman has worked with the petitioner- management from January, 1992 regularly upto 22.01.1993, till the date of his termination. It is an admitted position that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, were not complied with at the time of termination of services of the respondent-workman. Counsel for the petitioner-management has further submitted that the provisions of General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, would be applicable in the present case in view of the stand taken by the petitioner-management before the Labour Court that the respondent- workman was only appointed on daily wage basis, therefore, this contention -2- C.W.P. No. 4759 of 2009. of counsel for the petitioner-management, cannot be accepted. The Labour Court has further taken into consideration the post on which the respondent- workman was appointed, has been regularly filled up and the respondent- workman did not participate in the selection process and therefore, declined re-appointment in service to him. In lieu of reinstatement, the respondent -workman has been granted compensation which has been assessed as Rs. 25,000/- only. The factual aspect as recorded by the Labour Court and finding to that effect that the respondent-workman has put in more than one year of service, the amount as assessed by the Labour Court, is just and equitable. In this view of the matter, no interference by this Court is called for in the present writ petition. The present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 26, 2009. sjks. -3-