CWP No. 11150 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11150 of 2001 Date of decision October 8, 2009 Braham Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad and another. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, 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 award under challenge is a rejection of reference sought at the instance of the workman that he had been illegally terminated from service on 28.10.1994. The contention of the workman was that he had been appointed on 18.6.1993 in the Audit Department and he worked under control of resident Assistant Examiner and later in the Purchase Department of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad since January, 1994. The respondent completely denied that the workman at any point of time worked in the Corporation. Further, during the time of CWP No. 11150 of 2001 2 trial, it was admitted by the Management through production of muster rolls that he had been working from 2.5.1994 to 31.7.1994. 2. The workman had sought for production of despatch and receipt registers which although were before Court, the workman was not able to identify any entries in his hand writing and therefore the another focus of attention came on the attendance registers that had been produced by the Management and marked as Ex. M-7. The witness who had brought the record WW-2 admitted that he knew the workman but the Management witness No.1 K.S. Rawat claimed that the entries in the attendance register had been forged. The Labour Court also observed that the entries were not authentic and that no reliance could be made on the document on record on finding that the workman had completed 240 days. If there was a finding of fact by a labour Court, normally it shall not be possible for a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere with such a finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that observation of the Labour Court as though there were interpolations made and corrections effected in the document were perverse and even from a bare look at the document, it could be seen that there were any such interpolations. I have had therefore, examined the documents myself which is Ex. M-7 produced through the Management witness. The attendance register contains entries from January 1994 to December 1994. Evidently, it was a book meant for the year 1994 for the purchase department. The entries are made from page No.1 from January, 1994 to page No.12 for December, 1994. They are in a proper serial and no new entries or change of papers are possible. The attendance register also shows that the entries have been checked by the Purchase Officer and his initials have also been marked at the foot of each page. It is easily discernible that for each one of the months, the names of the Assistants, Peons and the Clerks have been CWP No. 11150 of 2001 3 named and the respective signatures have also been marked. Checking has also been made in each page Only in the page No.8 relating to August, 1994 against the fourth name written as Lajpat Rai, It could be seen that Lajpat Rai's name appears to be originally written in serial No.”3” and subsequently changed as 4. The name of Braham Singh has been written between serial Nos. 2 and 4 and names do not find the same spacing as it is found for S.No.1 and 2. If there is cause of suspicion it is with reference only to an entry in August, 1994. Even then the book had been summoned and brought to Court by the Management and it was expected that the Management should explain if there are any suspicious entries. It was elicited through the Management witness MW-1 that all the attendance registers had been checked periodically and signed on every day by Sh. Gupta in the Purchase Department. The Management could have examined their own witness Sh. Gupta if there was any discrepancy which required to be explained. The Labour Court was in my view unjustified in characterizing the entire book as not authentic, which contained the signature of the Purchase Officer for entry on every day. If at all, the Labour Court's observation with reference to the forged entries were to be made it shall have stood confined for August, 1994 only and I would confine the finding only to page 8 as not authentic. 3. The learned counsel for the Management submitted that the workman had admitted that the signature in Ex.M-6 which showed that he had applied for appointment only on 24.4.1994. Therefore, according to him, the claim by the workman that he had worked even prior to the period before Ex.M-6 could not be true. This statement in my view does not reflect the true state of affairs. The whole evidence of the workman if it is read, will bear out that the workman had originally been posted in the audit department and later he was transferred to the Purchase Department. He had stated in the cross examination, “ I had CWP No. 11150 of 2001 4 moved an application for this job earlier I was posted with the Audit Department. Later on application was got from me and I was sent in the Purchase Department. Ex. M-6 bears my signatures.” This letter must therefore be sent only as a letter which was taken from the workman during the course of his term of employment and not prior to the employment. I therefore, reject the contention that Ex.M-6 will give a lie to the whole edifice of the contentions of the workman. On the other hand, it is consistent with this case that he had been employed in another department and came to the Purchase Department and he had moved an application for consideration of a job in the other department. 4. If the reckoning of the number of days of the workman shall be from the attendance register, it is clearly seen that the workman had completed 240 days and was under such circumstances the finding of the Labour Court to the contrary was not justified. If the workman had completed 240 days, the termination of service without following the statutory provision under Section 25-F was unjustified. The rejection of reference under the circumstances is also not tenable in law. 5. The workman was under the circumstances entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Having regard to the fact that he had not worked of these years the workman shall be entitled only to 25% of back wages. 6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 8, 2009 archana