- (1.) THE workman is aggrieved against the award dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P3) whereby compensation of only Rs. 20,000/ - has been granted.
(2.) THE case of the workman, as per the claim statement before the the Labour Court is that he worked from 01.02.1996 to 30.09.1997 and was getting Rs. 1953/ - per month at the time of termination of his service. The mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') were not complied with. The defence taken by the respondent -Department was that the appointment was on daily wages basis against a particular work and 240 days had not been completed. The workman had himself abandoned the job and that the last work day was 31.08.1997 instead of 30.09.1997 and he never turned up on 01.09.1997.
(3.) THE Labour Court, Patiala took into consideration the statement of the workman and another witness WW2 -Karam Singh and came to the conclusion that the workman had worked continuously from 01.02.1996 to 30.09.1997 and since it was admitted by MW1 -Nachattar Singh that he worked with breaks during the said period, an adverse inference was also drawn against the Department as the muster rolls for September, 1997 had not been produced. Relevant observations read as under: "The case of the workman is that he continuously worked in the respondent department from 1.2.1996 to 30.9.1997 and that his services were illegally terminated by the respondents on 1.10.1997. On the other hand, the plea of the respondents is that workman left the job of his own on 1.9.1997. However, no reliable evidence has been led by the respondents to prove that the workman left the job of his own on 1.9.1997. MW1 Nachattar Singh, who is the official of respondent department admitted in his cross examination that workman performed duty for the period from 1.2.1996 to 30.9.1997 with breaks. So, it is proved on record that the workman worked in the respondent department during the period from 1.2.1996 to 30.9.1997. From the perusal of Ex.M2 it is clear that Karam Singh worked for 31 days in October 1996. As per Ex.M3, workman worked for 31 days in December 1996. From the perusal of Ex.M4 to Ex.M10, it is evident that the workman worked for 28 days in February 1997, 31 days in March 1997, 30 days in April, 1997, 31 days in May 1997, 30 days in June 1997, 31 days in July 1997 and 31 days in August 1997. The officials of the respondent department has admitted that workman lastly worked in the respondent department upto 30.9.1997. The muster rolls for September 1997, figuring the name of workman has not been produced in the court by the respondents for the reasons best known to them. So, adverse inference is to be drawn that if the said muster roll was produced in the Court by the respondents, it would have gone against them. So, this court is of the view that workman has been able to prove that he completed more than 240 days of service in the last preceding year prior to 30.9.1997. The respondents have failed to prove that the workman himself left the job. So, it could be easily inferred that the workman was retrenched on 1.10.1997. It is evident that retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workman, when he was retrenched. So, it is proved on the record that the services of workman were terminated by the respondents in violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act." However, in view of the fact that the employment was on daily wages basis and keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1and in view of the fact that the services of the workman were terminated more than 12 years back from the time of passing of the award, a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - was directed to be paid as compensation due to the non -compliance of Section 25 -F of the Act.;