V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) CHIEF Engineer, Irrigation Department, Haryana, and another, through present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek setting aside of award Annexure P -3. dated 10th September, 1992 rendered by the Presiding Officer -cum -Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the respondent No.2 was reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service.
(2.) THE solitary point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, while passing the order of retrenchment, the petitioner, management was not obliged to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. . After going through the records of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the only point raised by the learned counsel. It is true that the Labour Court returned the findings that considering the number of working days during April, 1986 to March, 1987 the workman was entitled to some more days to be counted and number of working days inclusive of Saturdays and Sundays would come 229 days. It is also true that by simply holding that the workman was entitled to protection under the law as action of employer was unfair labour practice as the workman was being shunted out before he completed 240 days so that he may not have any right. It is also true that the reasons as mentioned above by the Labour Court may not be sufficient or cogent enough to invalidate order of retrenchment, but the facts brought on the records of the case conclusively prove that the findings of the Labour Court that the workman had worked only 229 days is incorrect. With a view to prove that the workman respondent has put in only 222 days of service, the petitioner management has placed on the record the details of working days through daily register in respect of Daljit Singh, workman. Before the Labour Court in response to the claim petition of the workman a reply was given, copy whereof was placed on record by the workman vide Annexure R.2/15. It would be made out that the documents do not tally with each other. It has been clearly mentioned in Annexure P. -2 that the respondent workman had worked from March 1, 1987 to 1st July 1987 whereas this period is not mentioned in Annexure R.2/15. It is required to be mentioned here that the Labour Court did not believe the statement of Mr. M.S. Nain who stated that the workman was a daily paid labourer and had worked only for 93 days for the last twelve months. The management was directed to produce the records. From the record produced as also from the statement of Shri S.P. Goel, SDO, it was concluded that the workman had worked for 222 days as mentioned above, the record produced before the Labour Court was same as Annexure P -2, which was Annexure C.1. before the Labour Court.
(3.) THE workman in response to this petition had placed on record Annexure R.2/1 to R.2/13. These are copies of daily attendance register from the month of November, 1986 to November, 1987. This clearly shows that workman Baljeet Singh son of Haria had continued working from 3rd February, 1986 to 23rd November, 1987. The assertions made in the written statement supported by Annexures R.2/1 to R.2/13 have not been controverted as no replication has been filed in this petition. Mr. Monga, learned counsel for the petitioner, of course prays for an adjournment of this case enabling the petitioner to bring on record the additional affidavit alongwith the documents to rebut the aforesaid entries but the said request has been made at the conclusion of the arguments, which is declined. From perusal of relevant documents referred to above it transpires that the management petitioner in the first instance sought to prove that the workman' had worked only for 93 days. However, when the Labour Court directed the petitioner to prove the records of the case, the muster roll produced shows that the workman remained employed for 222 days only. This record also is not all true. As mentioned above there is discrepancy in Annexures P -2 and R -2/15. From the muster roll produced before the Labour Court and reply to the petition filed before the Labour Court on behalf of the management, it thus appears that an effort was made by the petitioner management to prove that the workman had not actually been employed for a period of 240 days so that he may not get any relief as it has been admitted by the petitioner that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. On the other hand, the respondent workman not only categorically stated that he had worked for complete one year i.e. right from January, 1987 to November, 1987 but his stand is also supported by the Daily attendance register, which has gone unrebutted. Under the circumstances aforesaid, there is no need to remand the case to the Labour Court for redetermining the matter. Even though the contention of Mr. Monga that there was no justification for the Labour Court to invalidate the order of retrenchment on the ground that merely because the workman was asked to quit before he could complete 240 days' service, may have some merit, yet in view of the fact that there is ample evidence to suggest that the workman had worked for 240 days and the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with, there is no choice but for to uphold the order passed by the Labour Court. However, in view of the fact that the demand notice was served by the workman to the Management in October, 1988 respondent -workman shall be entitled to his back wages from October, 1988 and not from November, 1987 when his services were terminated. But for this modification, the order passed by the Labour Court is sustained and the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.;