Civil Writ Petition No.11765 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.11765 of 1988 Date of Decision:25.11.2008 Amarjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Market Committee Rama District Bhatinda and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Amarjit Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated 3.6.1988 Annexure P.5. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver with the respondent- Committee on 21.11.1984 on daily wages basis in the pay-scale of Rs.400-600/-. He was asked to explain as to why he remained absent from duty on 6.1.1986 as well as 7.1.1986 and from 14.1.1986 to 20.1.1986. In his explanation, he submitted that he was not absent on 6.1.1986 and 7.1.1986. On these dates, he had reached the place of duty and was asked to assist the staff in handling foodgrains in the market yard. So far as his absence from 14.1.1986 to 20.1.1986 is concerned, he had come to the office on 14.1.1986. He received information that his sister-in-law was ill and consequently, he had to go immediately. He was thinking that he would come back soon but when he Civil Writ Petition No.11765 of 1988 -2- saw that his sister-in-law was seriously ill and she was to be taken to the City, he could not get the time to inform the office. He had worked for more than 240 days. The termination of his services amounted to retrenchment because he had not been terminated by taking disciplinary proceedings. He was not served with any charge-sheet nor any inquiry was held. The Committee did not have its own Standing Orders. So, the Model Standing Orders as framed by the State of Punjab under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act would apply. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be accepted in view of the grounds embodied therein. The workman raised industrial dispute, which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the termination of the services of the workman is justified and in order? 2. Relief. After hearing the representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda held that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Feeling aggrieved with the award dated 3.6.1988 Annexure.P.5, the petitioner- workman has filed this petition. None has come forward to argue this petition on behalf of the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Civil Writ Petition No.11765 of 1988 -3- Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate representing the petitioner urged with great eloquence that a glance through Annexure P.1 would reveal that the petitioner had explained away his absence on 6.1.1986 as well as 7.1.1986 and the remaining period as well. He further argued that as is borne out from the impugned award, respondents No.1 and 2 without holding any inquiry in relation to the absence of the workman terminated his services even without paying any compensation to him in adherence to the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act'). He further puts that the petitioner had completed his 240 days of service and that being so, the termination of his services tantamounts to retrenchment. I have well considered these submissions. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court has observed as under: “If the workman admits the guilt, enquiry is not necessary and it's absence does not spell breach of the principles of natural justice. The dismissal on account of admission of guilt nevertheless continues to be punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, which saves it from the definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act. If the termination of workman's service is not retrenchment, Section 25-F of the Act is not applicable. That is in the nutshell, the true legal proposition. The workman was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act because he was not retrenched.” Admittedly, the petitioner was a daily wager and had served only for about an year. On reading Annexure P.1 between the lines, it emanates that indeed the petitioner did admit his guilt. That being so, the above extracted observations cannot be faulted with any manner. It appears Civil Writ Petition No.11765 of 1988 -4- from Annexure P.1, that the petitioner was more conscious about his sister- in-law than his duty. Coming to the adoption of Model Standing Orders, the petitioner has not produced any evidence revealing that these Model Standing Orders have been adopted by respondents No.1 and 2. In the absence of their adoption by these respondents, it is very difficult to say that these Model Standing Orders were required to be followed or their non- observance has caused prejudice to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I do not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned award in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. November 25, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No