- (1.) STATE has laid challenge to the award dated 30.08.2013 (Annexure P -3) whereby, the Labour Court, Ambala has allowed the reference in favour of the workman and held him entitled to reinstatement with consequential service benefits.
(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that as per demand notice dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P -1), the claim of the worker was that he had joined service on daily wages as a Labourer on 01.01.2007 and was performing his duties to the best of his abilities. The worker was working with Sub Area Head Quarter PH and HP (I) Sub Area, Ambala Cantt under the supervision of Divisional Forest Officer, Ambala Forest Division and his presence used to be marked on rough papers and no attendance register was maintained. The worker had requested the management to maintain service/attendance record, as per law but the matter had been put off on one pretext or the other and eventually his services were terminated on 31.03.2010 without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, (in short 'the Act').
(3.) ON the matter being referred to the Labour Court, the defence of the petitioner -department was that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the job and was not entitled for the claim and the Forest Department was not an industry. The labour was engaged for specific work and on completion of the work, the workman has no right to claim work as a matter of right. Reference was made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others,2006 45 SCC 1to contend that such kind of employee had no legal right to be regularized in service. The factum of 240 days was also denied in the last 12 preceding months from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. A plea was taken that the record of the Division upto 31.03.2010 was destroyed in the flood on 06.07.2010 and 07.07.2010 and DDR was lodged in Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City. The detail of the workman's working days was prepared as per record available at the time of demand notice. Reference was made to Annexure D -1 to show that the workman worked only for 178 days and, therefore, he had not completed 240 days. The Labour Court, after noticing the deposition of the workman who appeared as WW -2 had examined Mukesh Kumar, MTS, Office of Station Cell Headquarters PH and HP Sub Area, Ambala Cantt. as WW1 and also after taking into consideration the statement of management witnesses MW -1 Vishal Kaushik, Range Forest Officer and Rishi Pal Malik, Assistant as MW -2 reproduced a chart whereby alongwith the exhibits it correlated the same and came to a conclusion that the workman worked for 240 days and there was an admission by the MW -2 during his cross examination regarding the said period. Thus, a finding was recorded that w.e.f. April, 2009 to March, 2010, Pawan Kumar, the workman had worked for a continuous period of 240 days. Even the said official admitted that the exhibits WW1/1 to WW1/1/45 had been seen by him and verified to be correct. The Labour Court noticed that the management had relied upon Annexure D -1 to show that the workman had worked for 178 days and there was another detail wherein, it was mentioned that he had worked for 149 days and it was contrary to the stand taken by the department. It was also noticed that MW -2 had appeared as witness and brought the record Ex.MW2/2, which was the copy of the cash book. The working days of the workman were different from that of Annexure D -1 relied upon by the department. Accordingly, finding was recorded that the workman had proved his case that he had worked for 240 days in preceding twelve months of his termination. Thus, it was held that he is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential service benefits and the issue that his termination was illegal was decided in favour of the workman and he was held entitled for the benefits.;