The High Court dismissed the industrial dispute appeal filed by a retrenched worker alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held the appellant failed to prove sufficient service tenure and rejected his reliance on co-workers' reinstatement orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
LPA No.2179 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.2179 of 2011 Date of Decision 22.3.2013
Ram Chander
--Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Chief Conservator of Forests (TR) and others
--Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JUDGE
Present: Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. A.K. Rathee, Addl. A.G.Haryana
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J:
The appellant had raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was engaged as Beldar on 1.10.1993 in the Aravali Project at a salary of `2200/-per month but no appointment letter was issued to him. He was paid wages against muster roll and his services were terminated on 1.11.1999 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short' the Act'). He also alleged that other workers, namely, Samrata, Chhotu Ram and Hari Ram, whose services were also terminated, have been reinstated in service in terms of the award of the Labour Court with continuity of service w.e.f 03.12.1999 and the said award has been upheld up till the Supreme Court and they have been
LPA No.2179 of 2011
2
taken back on duty on 29.11.2004.
The reference sought by the appellant was answered against him by the Labour Court on the ground that he had not completed 240 days in the last 12 preceding months from the date of termination of his service. The same view has been taken by the learned Single Judge who had even asked for the attendance record of the appellant from November 1998 to October 1999 from which it has been found that he had worked for 162 days in the last 12 preceding months from the date of termination of his services.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued and pointed out that no evidence was led by the management before the Labour Court and the evidence led by the appellant has been misread in determining the period during which the appellant had worked. He also submitted that similarly situated persons who were also retrenched have been reinstated in view of the orders of the Labour Court with continuity of service and the said order has been upheld through out.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the respondents had not led any evidence, the onus was on the appellant to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination of his service which the appellant had miserably failed to do so and the other employees who had also been retrenched had proved to have worked for more than 240 days, as a result of which their reinstatement has been ordered by the Labour Court. It is also submitted that the Aravali project in which the appellant was working as Beldar was funded by the European Union which had stopped funding it and the Project has come to an end long back.
3
LPA No.2179 of 2011
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
It is needless to mention that the appellant had to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the last 12 months prior to the date of termination of his service and the evidence which has been brought on record shows that he had worked for 162 days. Moreover, the appellant cannot compare his case with other co-workers, namely, Samrata, Chhotu Ram and Hari Ram because they had proved before the Labour Court having worked for more than 240 days prior to the date of termination of their sevices in one calendar year and the Aravali Project in which the appellant was working had already been closed long back in the year 1999 itself due to the fact that the European Union had stopped funding it.
In view thereof, we do not find any error in the orders of the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit.
22.3.2013 (A.K.SKRI) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE rr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant proved he worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding termination to claim reinstatement under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the appellant can maintain comparison with co-workers who were reinstated by the Labour Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Chander
The Deputy Chief Conservator of Forests (TR)
A.K. Sikri
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
