AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 23.8.1999, Annexure P1, vide which the Labour Court had declined relief of reinstatement etc. to the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 1.8.1993 and he worked upto 30.11.1993 with respondent No. 2 as Palli for looking after cattle. Thereafter he worked from 1.12.1993 to 31.1.1994 with respondent No. 3 as a Palli. He again worked from 1.2.1994 to 23.2.1994 with respondent No. 2 as a Palli. He again worked with effect from 1.3.1994 to 10.3.1994, then 11.3.1994 to 31.3.1994 and then from April, 1994 to 31.5.1994. The learned Labour Court has held that if these separate periods are taken together, they would come 19 more than 240 days but they cannot be joined.
The counsel for the respondents argued that the Drawing and Disbursing Officers of these respondents are different and they cannot be joined. Respondent No. 2 is Chief Superintendent, State Government Live Stock Farm, Hisar and respondent No. 3 is Sector Superintendent, State Government Live Stock Farm, Hisar. Similar question had arisen in the case of "Sector Superintendent, Government Live Stock Farm, Hisar v. Rajinder Son of Gopi Ram and another", Civil Writ Petition No. 8553 of 1995 and the matter came up for hearing on 13.12, 1995 before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench has observed, inter alia, as under :-
"It is submitted that the respondent-workman was proved to have remained firstly under the employment of Sector Superintendent (I), Government Live Stock Farm, Hissar and then Deputy Director Sheep Breeding Farm, Hissar which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner were two different organisations and distinct employer, so far as respondent-workman was concerned. We are not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as both the aforesaid organisations were under the control of the Chief Superintendent, Government Live Stock which is admittedly an orgnisation under the control of the State of Haryana. It has beeh brought to our notice that the aforesaid two officers were under the direct control of the Chief Superintendent, Government Live Stock Farm, Hisar."
We do not find any distinction between this case and the case of Rajinder (supra), the facts being very similar.
Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had abandoned his service. The Labour Court has observed in one line in paragraph No. 14 of the award as under :-
"He was employed as and when he presented himself as per availability of the work and he himself had left the job".
No reason is shown as to how it can even be presumed that the petitioner had abandoned his job. The last working day of the petitioner was 31.5.1994 and the demand notice is dated 1.8.1994. This shows that if the petitioner had abandoned job, he would not have given demand notice. Moreover, if the petitioner had presented himself as per availability of work as stated by respondent No. 2, he would have been given job but this has not happened. Looking to the time that had elapsed between the termination of service and the date of the demand notice, we do not find any justification even to presume that the petitioner had abandoned his job. On the contrary, the same goes in favour of the petitioner.
The last point argued was that the respondent is not an industry. We asked the counsel as to whether this point was taken in the written statement in the Labour Court. He has not been able ta say anything regarding the same. The counsel for the petitioner has shown to us a copy of reply filed before the Labour Court. This plea does not find place in the said reply. We, therefore, do not find it proper to entertain this plea in this writ petition.
In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be re-instated in service with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits and 75% back wages.
Petition allowed.