IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. 12261 of 1991 Date of Decision : January 07, 2011 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar and another ....Petitioners Versus Vinod Kumar and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Ms. Harman Sullar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioners. None for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Order passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda on July 30, 1990 while declaring the termination of services of the respondent-workman as void, ab-initio and holding him entitled to full back wages, stands challenged by the petitioners by way of the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the workman, he had put in seven years' services with the department as a Safai Sewak. However, on 2.12.1988, his services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or compensation. Accordingly, he submitted his claim before the Labour Court, Bathinda with a prayer that he be reinstated in service besides granting him full back wages as he remained unemployed subsequent to the order whereby his services were terminated. CWP 12261 of 1991 -2- The only issue which is required to be seen in the present case was as to whether the workman had worked continuously for 240 days or more with the department during the last twelve calendar months. The department had examined its Clerk Munshi Ram as MW1, who deposed that the workman had worked for the period from 5.11.1981 to 30.11.1988 continuously. From the said fact, it stood fully proved that the workman had put in more than 240 days during the last twelve calendar months. In such a situation, he could not be ousted from service without issuing notice or granting him compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman had clearly stated in his claim petition that he had remained unemployed since the termination of his services. This stand of the workman was not rebutted by the department by leading any evidence. In such a situation, the workman was entitled to full back wages. To be fair to the learned State counsel, it may be mentioned here that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Faridabad V Durga Prasad 2008(3) SLR 778 is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case as in the said case the workman had worked only for 179 days and even holidays had been taken into account while calculating the said period. Similarly, no benefit can be extended to the petitioners in view of the judgment rendered by Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Tapi CWP 12261 of 1991 -3- Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon V Bhanudas Nathu Patil 2008(7) SLR 721 as the workman therein was denied the relief of reinstatement on account of approaching the Labour Court after a delay of two years and the Division where the workman therein had been working was to be closed and that there was no budgetary provision made for it and as such there was no work which could be taken up by the Division whereas in the present case the workman had approached the Labour Court after one year and two months and the Department continues to be operational even today. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 07, 2011 JUDGE ajay-1