AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
This petition though listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.
Petitioners, arraigned as 2nd party in I.D.No. 438/2000 before the Labour Court, Mysore, aggrieved by the award dt. 10/8/2010, have presented this petition.
On the allegation that the petitioners had engaged the respondent on daily wages as an Assistant cook/ watchman/ accountant in the government hostel for SC & ST students from the year 1994-95 onwards, when refused employment, led to filing a petition under Sec. 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the ''Act'' arraigning the petitioners as II party, was opposed by filing statement of objections of the petitioners, interalia denying the claim of the respondent. Parties entered trial, whence the respondent was examined as WW-1 and 13 documents marked as Ex. W1 to W13, while for the petitioners, MW-1 College Superintendent and MW-2 Social Welfare Officer, were examined and Ex. M1 marked (according to Sri. B. J. Somayaji, Learned Counsel for the petitioner). The Labour Court, having regard to the material on record, the evidence both oral and documentary, accepted the case of the respondent on the premise that the petitioners had failed to produce the original attendance register and salary disbursement register maintained in the hostel for the relevant period which would have thrown light on the claim of the petitioner and that the petitioners did not produce records to the contrary so as to establish that Ex. W1 to W13 were concocted and accordingly by the award impugned, allowed the claim of the respondent and directed reinstatement with 50% backwages on the basis of last wage paid, without continuity of service and consequential benefits on regularisation. Hence this petition.
Sri, B.J. Somayaji, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court fell in error in not appreciating the oral evidence of MWs. 1 & 2, who categorically denied the documents marked in the testimony of the respondent-workman, as concocted and unreliable. According to the Learned Counsel, the Labour Court: ought to have discarded the evidence, both oral and documentary, of the respondent as unacceptable, in the absence of the originals of the exhibits.
Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondent - workman critically opposes the submission by pointing to the admission elicited in the cross-examination of MW-2 Chowdegowda, the Social Welfare Officer, who being the custodian of relevant records failed to produce the same in support of the contention that the records, documents exhibited, were concocted, the Labour Court was fully justified in drawing the conclusions and allowing the Reference. Learned Counsel seeks to sustain the award impugned, as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, there is force in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondent that the award impugned does not call for interference. I say so because Chowdegowda, Social Welfare Officer examined as MW-2, in the cross-examination, states thus:
It is true that Expt W12, the first party received salary from the District Welfare Officer at Mysore, It is true in 1995, The first party request representation for payment of minimum wages and accordingly officer has accepted and ordered to pay minimum wage Expt W1. Now I see under Expt. 6. One Puttaiah from Social Welfare Department, made inspection and prepared report in the name of the first party working in the said office".
Ex. P12 is said to be the acquaintance register disclosing the name of the respondent and the wages paid to him for having worked as daily wager. Ex. W1 is the order dt. 29/3/1995 stating that the respondent be paid the minimum wages. In the face of the admission elicited in the depositions of MW-2, the Social Welfare Officer, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that Ex. W1 and W12 are concocted and not worthy of acceptance pales into insignificance. A responsible officer of the social welfare department, having admitted the fact of having paid the wages to the respondent, while working as daily wager, coupled with the direction to pay the minimum wages and an inspection report favoring the respondent employed as a daily wager in the petitioners hostel, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Labor Court in the award impugned, to hold that the respondent when appointed as a daily wager was there afterwards denied employment, the cause of action for raising an industrial dispute.
The Labor Court having come to a conclusion that the respondent was only a daily wager, while directing him to be reinstated to the post of daily wager, without continuity of service and consequential benefits, awarded 50% back wages. The question of payment of back wages to a daily wager, it is held in a catena of decisions of the Apex court, is impermissible.
It is no doubt true that it is well settled principle, that in the matter of termination of service of daily wagers, in violation of Sec. 25-F of the Act, a direction to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, is held to be just and proper. In the present case too, applying the very same principles, as laid down in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, , to the facts of this case, the Labor Court having recorded a finding that the respondent worked for more than 240 days continuously in a year immediately preceding the date of termination, I think it appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- .
Although Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the unreported decision in Chief Executive Officer & Others Vs. Shivalingaiah in W.A. No. 3500/2010. DD. 31/5/2011, directing payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for a cock on daily wages who was terminated from service, after having worked for one year and nine months from 1995 onwards till termination in 1997, I am afraid, that judgment on facts has no application to the facts of this case.
The Labor Court held that the respondent served the petitioners as an assistant cook/watchman and as an accountant in the petitioner-government hostel from 1994 to 2000, while answering issue Nos. 2 and 3.
In the result, this petition is disposed of by modifying the award impugned, directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent-workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, in any event within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.