Dismissed

Joginder Singh v. the Executive Engineer PWD B&R Provincial Division No. 1 Rohtak & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2016CWP/4072/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Industrial Tribunal dismissal of termination dispute under I.D. Act. Court held Tribunal correct in finding no violation of Section 25-F due to insufficient service days and Section 25-G not attracted due to failure to prove junior retained. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India was dismissed.

Joginder Singh Vs the Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2016 Date of Decision: 01.3.2016.

Joginder Singh

........Petitioner

Versus

Executive Engineer, PWD and another

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari challenging the award dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-4).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had worked with the respondent management since April 1988. At the time of termination of services of the petitioner, mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) had not been complied with. Inder Singh, junior to the petitioner, had been retained in service.

¶16

Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice challenging his termination. Dispute raised by the petitioner was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court by the appropriate Government.

¶17

Case of the petitioner, in brief, was that he had joined the services of the respondent management on 2.4.1988 as a Beldar on daily wage basis. However, services of the petitioner

¶18

GURPREET SINGH 2016.03.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2016 -2-

¶20

were orally terminated on 1.8.2000. Juniors to the petitioner, had been retained in service whereas services of the petitioner were terminated.

¶21

Respondent No. 1, in its written statement, denied the contention of the petitioner that he was working with the management since 2.4.1988. It was denied that there existed any relationship of employee and employer between the parties.

¶22

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court:-

¶23

“ 1. Whether termination of services of Sh. Joginder is justified and, if not, to what relief he is entitled to? OPW

¶24

2. Whether the mgt. does not fall within the definition of industry as alleged ? OPM

¶25

3. Relief.”

¶26

Parties led their evidence in support of their respective

¶27

pleas.

¶28

Learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court vide the impugned award dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the reference sought by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-workman.

¶29

In the present case, respondent No. 1 proved on record muster rolls Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-12. As per the muster rolls proved on record, petitioner had not worked for 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of his termination i.e. 1.8.2000. Hence, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had not been violated in the present case. So far as the plea of the petitioner

¶30

GURPREET SINGH 2016.03.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶31

Civil Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2016 -3-

¶32

that Inder Singh son of Phool Singh had been retained in service is concerned, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court rightly held that the petitioner had failed to establish the said fact.

¶33

WW2-Anil Kumar Sub Divisional Clerk in the office of respondent No. 1 had deposed that Inder Singh son of Phool Singh had been appointed on 1.1.1989 and had been made permanent on 31.3.1993. WW3-Ishwar Singh deposed that petitioner had worked with him in the year 1989 and from 1990 to 1992. WW-4 Satbir deposed that petitioner had worked with him from the year 1989 upto 1995-1996.

¶34

Thus, the plea of the petitioner that Inder Singh was junior to him was not established on record because as per the evidence on record, Inder Singh started working with the management with effect from 1.1.1989 and as per the witnesses examined by the petitioner, he had also worked from the year 1989. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act were not attracted in the present case.

¶35

Since the petitioner had failed to establish his case, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had, thus, rightly declined the reference sought by the petitioner.

¶36

No ground for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out.

¶37

Dismissed.

¶38

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶39

March 01, 2016 Gurpreet

¶40

GURPREET SINGH 2016.03.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Joginder Singh v. the Executive Engineer PWD B&R Provincial Division No. 1 Rohtak & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh v. the Executive Engineer PWD B&R Provincial Division No. 1 Rohtak & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harnana Urban Development Authority Vs Yamin Workman and Another

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Mohinder Singh Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

M/S S.R Industries Vs Kishan Kumar & Anr.

Nand Kishore Vs Union Bank of India & Ors.

Principal, Sant Nischal Singh Public School & Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar and Another