AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bali, J.—The Executive Engineer, Canal Lining Area Division, Tarn Taran, through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks setting aside of Award dated July 16, 1991, Annexure P-4 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity as also the back wages from the date when he had served demand notice on the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case reveal that respondent-workman was appointed on May 26, 1981 on the post of Store-attendant. On September 1, 1987 he was given notice that his service shall stand terminated on September 30, 1987 as he was surplus. On May 18, 1990 the workman served demand notice on petitioner and in consequence of the dispute having been referred by the Government u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, an ex-parte award, Annexure P4, re-instating the workman with wages as mentioned above, came to be passed on July 16, 1991. This ex- pane award was sought to be set aside in an application filed on behalf of petitioner for reviewing the order as the same was passed without hearing him. This application was dismissed as the Labour Court was rightly of the view that after giving Award which had been published in the Gazette it had become functus-officio. It is these two orders i.e. the Award as mentioned above and the order that has been passed on review application, that have been challenged in the present petition.
Mr. Masih, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of petitioner contends that it was a case of contractual employment inasmuch as respondent-workman was employed only till such time the canal Lining Division work was to be completed. On completion of the work aforesaid, there was no choice for the management but for to retrench the workman as his services were no more required. The second contention of learned counsel is that Canal Lining Division of the Irrigation Department is not an industry as defined under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I find no substance in any of the contentions made by the learned counsel. Insofar as the first point is concerned, it was question of fact and it had to be proved by petitioner by leading evidence on that behalf before the Labour Court. Even though written statement was filed but none appeared thereafter on behalf of the management before the Labour Court. In the circumstances aforesaid, there was no choice for the Labour Court but for to proceed ex-pane against it (Management). While making an application for review/recalling the Award and deciding the case on merits, all that has been pleaded is that after written statement was filed, no further date was received for appearing in the Labour Court. It has also been pleaded in later part of the application that no date for hearing of this case was given and, therefore, petitioner was not afforded full opportunity. Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the workman, has shown to me the proceedings conducted by the Labour Court. On February 3, 1990 when representation was only on behalf of the workman, the following order was passed:-
"Respondent not served. Fresh notice be issued for February 20, 1991."
On the adjourned date of hearing, the case was simply adjourned to April 3, 1991. It is clearly recorded in the order dated April 3, 1991 that Shri Jagjit Singh Bedi was present on behalf of the Management whereas workman was also shown to be represented by someone. Written statement was filed and the case was adjourned to April 24, 1991. The aforesaid date, thus it is proved, was given in the presence of the representative of the Management. The plea taken up in the review application as also in the present petition that no further date was given in the matter after written statement was filed, is thus proved to be false. As mentioned above, in view of the circumstances there was no choice for the Labour Court but for to proceed in the matter and render the Award ex-parte. This Court would have certainly remanded this case if for some cogent reasons the representative of the Management was not able to appear on the date fixed but inasmuch as the only ground stated in the review application and the present petition has been proved to be false, there is no necessity to remand the case to the Labour Court.
Insofar as plea of learned counsel that Lining Division of Irrigation Department is not an industry is concerned, the same has only to be noticed and rejected. The Supreme Court in Des Raj v. State of Punjab I988 II LLJ 149 has authoritatively held that the Irrigation Department is an industry as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Merely I because respondent workman was employed in Canal Lining Division of the Irrigation Department, it cannot be said that he was not an em-ployee of the Irrigation Department.
Finding no merit, I dismiss this petition. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost.