- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 10.10.2011, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman and he has not been found entitled to any relief.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the workman had been engaged on daily wage basis as a Beldar and has worked continuously from 15.6.1985 to 1.6.2001. whereupon his services had been terminated without issuance of notice, enquiry, wages in lieu of notice period or retrenchment compensation. It has been argued that the Labour Court has wrongfully declined the reference, whereas the petitioner- workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity along with backwages on account of non-compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). It is submitted that the Labour Court has overlooked a material contradiction wherein WW2 Ashok Kumar, Clerk, office of Executive Engineer, PWD (Public Health Division), Jhajjar had clearly deposed on the basis of the summoned record that the workman had served from 15.7.1985 upto 30.11.1986 (even though with intermittent breaks), whereas Management witness MW1 Har Kishan Dalal, Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health, Sub Division, Beri had deposed that the workman had served only upto 30.9.1986. It is contended that the Management had not come forth with clean hands before the Labour Court as regards precise days for which the workman had discharged his duties and as such, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the Management and in favour of the workman. Learned counsel has also argued that even if there was any allegation pertaining to absence from duty, it was incumbent upon the Management to have conducted an enquiry and it is only upon such mis-conduct having been proved that an order of termination could have been passed. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon a Single Bench judgment passed by this Court in Management of Modella Woollens Management of Modella Woollens Ltd. v. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chd., 1993 3 SCT 431. Yet SCT 431 another submission raised by the learned counsel is that the finding of the Labour Court with regard to the petitioner having abandoned service is perverse as such a finding has been recorded without any evidence having been adduced in support thereof by the Management.
(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner had been engaged as a Beldar on daily wage basis on 15.7.1985 and had rendered service in such capacity only upto 30.11.1986 and thereafter had left the work of his own will and accord. Learned State counsel further states that the workman had not completed continuous service of 240 days in any calender year and as such, no interference is called for in the well-reasoned award passed by the Labour Court declining the reference.;