Khem Singh vs Presiding Officer Labour Court & Others

Kuldeep Tiwari, J

The workman (petitioner herein) raised an industrial dispute by filing his claim statement, which was referred, by way of a reference for adjudication to the Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh. The said reference was answered against the workman, with the observation that he has not been able to prove that he had worked with the respondents-management for 240 days in the last preceding year, through an Award dated 15. 09.2000 (Annexure P-1). The said Award has been put to challenge by the workman, before this Court through the instant petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that the petitioner-workman had worked with the respondent-management from 10.01.1989 till 31.12.1989, therefore, in all eventuality he had completed 240 days in the preceding year, when his services were terminated by the respondent-management.

She further submits that the muster-roll pertaining to the period of November, 1989 and December, 1989, was not brought on record, despite there being a specific direction by the learned Labour Court concerned, therefore, an adverse inference should have been taken against the respondent-management.

She further draws attention of this Court towards the muster-roll, pertaining to November, 1989 and December, 1989, which have now been placed on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively, to submit that these documents clearly establishes the case of the petitioner-workman, with regard to his completion of 240 days in the preceding year. However, all these aspects have not been considered by the learned Labour Court in its right perspective, therefore, the impugned Award requires interference.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner-workman to submit that the petitioner-workman was appointed on daily wages in Punjab Roadways Nangal on 10.01.1989, and he worked there till 28. 05.1989, and thereupon, he again joined in Chandigarh Depot of the Punjab Roadways on 01.06.1989.

He further submits that the petitioner-workman was never transferred to the Chandigarh Depot from Nangal Depot, rather, it was his fresh appointment at a different district.

He also submits that the employment during two different periods, in two different branches of the Punjab Roadways, cannot be clubbed together, to take the benefit of continuous tenure.

He also placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in 'DGM, Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. vs. Illas Abdulrehman' 2005 (2) SCC 183, to lend vigor to his arguments.

This Court has considered the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and also has perused the entire case file.

The main issue for consideration before this Court is, whether, the petitioner-workman, has completed 240 days in the preceding year or not. It is a case of the petitioner-workman himself, that he worked as Chowkidar on daily wages with the respondent-management at Nangal Depot, from 10.01.1989 till 28.05.1989 and, thereafter, at Chandigarh Deport from 01.06.1989 till 31.12.1989. The petitioner-workman, has failed to bring on record any evidence to substantiate his claim, inasmuch as any transfer order, that he was transferred by the respondent-management from Nagal Depot to Chandigarh Depot. In the absence of any such transfer order, this Court, cannot accept the petitioner-workman's claim regarding completion of 240 days in the preceding year. Rather, it supports the case of the respondent-management, to the effect that, the appointment of the petitioner-workman at Chandigarh Depot, was indeed a fresh appointment.

The issue regarding calculation of 240 days in the last preceding year, has been duly considered by the learned Labour Court, and it was, specifically, concluded that the petitioner-workman, has not worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The relevant part of the impugned Award, is extracted hereinafter:-

“8...............He has argument that the workman has worked in Punjab Roadways Nangal Depot for 10th January, 1989 to 28th May, 1989. Не was working as daily wage basis. He was not to be transferred to Chandigarh. General Manager, Punjab Roadways Nangal was not competent to transfer the workman who was working on daily wage basis to Chandigarh Depot. Otherwise also the workman had worked from 10th January, 1989 to 28th May, 1989 for 136 days and then he worked in Punjab Roadways Chandigarh Depot only for 43 days as details given by MW-Flourance Clerk that the workman worked from 26th August, 1989 to 31st August, 1989 and 9th September, 1989 to 30th September, 1989 and from Ist October, 1989 to 16th October, 1989. It is argued that even after calculating the working days for which the workman has worked at two places i.e at Punjab Roadways Nangal Depot and Punjab Roadways Chandigarh Depot if taken together yet he has not worked for 240 days. The workman has not worked for 240 days so he so he is not entitled to claim any benefit......... ”

The muster-roll which have been produced before this Court vide Annexures P-2 and P-3, are not part of the record of learned Labour Court concerned, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage by this Court. Further, even if these documents were to be taken into consideration, the petitioner-workman seeks to calculate the period of his service by clubbing his tenure at two different depots of Punjab Roadways, which is, otherwise, not permissible. Further, as already observed by this Court that in the absence of any transfer order, the engagement of the petitioner-workman at Chandigarh Depot would be considered as a fresh appointment.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned Award. Accordingly, the instant petition, is hereby, dismissed.

All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.