AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the Award dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure P-4) to the extent of denial of back wages and treating the period of absence from service as Extraordinary Leave without pay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the workman (since deceased) was appointed as a Driver on 28.02.1996 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 27.07.2002. At the time of appointment, the workman possessed a valid driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Timarpur, Delhi, and subsequently, in compliance with the instructions of the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, a fresh licence was issued to him by the Licensing Authority, Bhiwani on 05.06.2002. It is submitted that during verification, the Authority had only reported that the licence record was not traceable, and had never declared the licence of the workman to be fake. However, without conducting any regular inquiry, the respondents dismissed the workman from service vide order dated 01.02.2007 on the allegation of obtaining employment on the basis of a fake licence. The Labour Court held the termination illegal, set it aside, and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits; however, back wages were denied and the intervening period was treated as Extraordinary Leave without pay. Learned counsel contends that once the termination was held illegal, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ could not have been applied, as the workman was prevented from performing his duties due to the illegal action of the respondents. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned Award dated 01.04.2013 deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the impugned Award is legal and well reasoned, and calls for no interference.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that the learned Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the Licensing Authority, Timarpur, Delhi had not declared the driving licence of the workman to be fake and had only reported that the record of the licence was not traceable. The learned Labour Court, therefore, held that the respondents should have conducted a proper enquiry to verify the genuineness of the licence, which was not done, thereby denying the workman an opportunity to establish that his licence was genuine. The learned Labour Court further found that the case of the workman was infact on a better footing than one Rajender Kumar, who was granted the benefit of the Transport Commissioner’s policy dated 20.08.2001 and was reinstated in service, and who’s case was relied upon by the workman in support of his submissions. Accordingly, the termination order dated 01.02.2007 was set aside and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed.
At the same time, the termination, though ultimately found unsustainable, was not shown to be actuated by mala fides or wholly without any basis, the respondent No.2 having acted upon the verification report received from the Licensing Authority. The workman, during the intervening period, admittedly did not render service for respondent No.2 and also did not, even prima facie, establish that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the said period. Similarly, no other exceptional circumstance had been demonstrated warranting payment of salary for the period during which no work was performed. Under such circumstances, the direction in the impugned award to reinstate the workman in service while treating the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay, cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse.
It is well settled that this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards of Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact, nor does it re-appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), despite his able assistance, has been unable to point to any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on a fair appreciation of the evidence on record and call for no interference.
In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed.
Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also disposed of.