C.W.P. No.8021 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 1. C.W.P. No.8021 of 1988 Date of Decision:19.09.2008 Sarwan Singh .....Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another .....Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.11465 of 1988 The Hoshiarpur National Transporters Private Limited, Hoshiarpur .....Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Ms. Maninder, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Chopra, Advocate. Mr. D.R. Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.8021 of 1988 moved by Sarwan Singh (hereinafter to be referred as `the workman') as well as C.W.P. No.11465 of 1988 filed by The Hoshiarpur National Transporters Private Limited, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter to be called as `the Management') against the award dated 11.3.1988 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (Camp at Hoshiarpur). The facts as garnered from Civil Writ Petition No.8021 of 1988 are that the workman joined the service of the Management in C.W.P. No.8021 of 1988 -2- February, 1942 on permanent basis and had been working as Inspector continuously on monthly wages of Rs.423/- upto 30.9.1982. His services were terminated illegally and wrongfully with effect from 1.10.1982. He was not paid the wages since August, 1980. So, he filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act') seeking computation of the arrears of wages for the period from August, 1980 to June, 1982. The Management felt annoyed with the petitioner because of the filing of the application. When he met the Managing Director, he told the workman that since he moved the Labour Court, the Management has no place in the Company for him. He was not allowed to enter the office with effect from 1.10.1982. Against his illegal and wrongful termination, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. After hearing the representatives of the parties, the Labour Court directed the Management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but without back-wages and also gave direction to the Management to make payment of Rs.9,729/- to the workman by allowing his application under Section 33-C(2) ibid. Feeling aggrieved therewith, both the parties have posed challenge to the award. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Concededly, the workman- Sarwan Singh has breathed his last. Learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has observed that “the respondent (referring to the Management) ought to have examined the concerned officials/ drivers to state that no checking was conducted by Sarwan Singh during the period. Mere pleading ignorance does not advance C.W.P. No.8021 of 1988 -3- the case of the respondent. Thus, when the workman had been performing his duties even after 15.6.1981, there is no reason to think that he had submitted the resignation Ex.R.3 or had received any amount under the receipt Ex.R.4. In other words, the plea of the respondent that the workman/ applicant had voluntarily resigned his job is not proved. In the wake of the findings on Issue No.2 against the respondent, the plea raised by the workman/ applicant that his services were terminated by the respondent has to be taken to be true. Obviously, if he had not resigned, then the services had been terminated by the respondent. The circumstance indicate that the respondent did not want to retain him in service because the Management had changed and Sarwan Singh had to resign from the Board of Directors of the respondent- Company. However, the respondent was unable to make out any justification for the termination of his services nor it pleaded any justification for the same. It is further observed that neither the resignation Ex.R.3 nor the payment vide Ex. R.4 is proved to have been made to Sarwan Singh.” Neither counsel could assail these findings successfully. Consequently, no interference is warranted in the impugned award in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Sequelly, both these petitions are dismissed. September 19, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE