CWP No. 15159 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15159 of 1999 Date of decision August 24, 2009 M/s Everest Steel Fabricators ....... Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Faridabad and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. V. G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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 challenge in the writ petition is against the award passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad directing reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages. The workman had sought a reference on the ground that he had been employed on 28.7.1995 and he was illegally terminated on 14.5.1996, that he had completed 240 days of continuous service and that the termination effected without complying with the statutory provisions of Section 25-F was illegal. 2. The response of the Management was that the workman had been appointed only on 14.5.1996 and even within 40 days, he was making persistent demands for increase in salary which the Management was not prepared to accede to. The workman was informed CWP No. 15159 1999 2 of the Management's position and he was prepared to receive a monetary compensation for the days that he had worked and left the employment after receiving Rs.2500/-. The receipt was purported to be in full and final settlement of all claims and that he would not seek for any right to serve in the factory any longer. 3. As regards the number of days of service which the workman claimed that he had worked, the workman had placed only his own oral evidence. The Management attempted to show through the attendance registers and their contributions to ESI that he had been shown in the register as having joined the Management only on 1.4.1996 and the claim of the workman that he had been working even since 28.7.1995 had no basis. The Labour Court preferred the oral evidence against documentary evidence on an observation that the Management could not have made the contribution to ESI even for a workman who had been employed only for a period of 40 days. Learned counsel appearing for the Management would submit that under Section 38 of the ESI Act, the duty to make a contribution by an establishment which is covered under the provisions of the ESI began instantly from the date of employment and therefore, the inference to a long period of engagement of over 240 days by the fact of contribution to ESI made by the Labour Court was clearly untenable. I have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned counsel that when the liability to contribute is statutory, there is no question for applying a presumption that the workman must have worked for more than 240 days. Such a proof must be clearly adduced by the workman in the first place and it would be difficult to displace the documentary evidence by oral evidence on such a vital issue relating to the engagement for a continuous period of 240 days. The finding of the Labour Court that he worked for 240 days is therefore, set aside. 4. Even as regards the claim by the workman that CWP No. 15159 1999 3 Rs.2500/- had not been paid and that his signatures had been taken on blank papers, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the signature in the stamped receipt had been admitted by him. He was not an illiterate and therefore, he could not be heard to state that he had signed a document without knowing the contents. It has been repeatedly held in several decisions that a person of full age and understanding who signs a document cannot be heard to contend that he signed it without apprising himself of the recitals. If he is so imprudent to sign the document without reading the document then he shall take the consequences of his own folly and abide by the consequences. This finding of the Labour Court that the document cannot be true is equally not tenable and it is set aside. This finding is again merely incidental and of no consequence for, even if it were to be held in support of the workman that it was not a true document, the workman had not proved his continuous service beyond 240 days to claim any benefit under Section 25-F or complain that the termination was against law. 5. The award of the Labour Court is erroneous and is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall, however, be no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 24, 2009 archana