State Of Haryana vs Suraj & Anr.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the award dated 05.10.2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2, whereby respondent No.1-workman, since deceased and now represented through his legal representatives, was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

Learned State counsel submits that the workman had worked only for a period of about nine months, i.e. from 01.01.1995 to 30.09.1995, and that his last drawn salary was Rs. 1325/- per month. It is further submitted that the workman had not completed 240 days of service during the preceding twelve calendar months and, therefore, was not entitled to the relief granted by the Labour Court.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the workman, while relying upon the impugned award, submits that the muster rolls produced before the Labour Court as Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-8 establish that the workman had completed more than 240 days of service during the preceding twelve calendar months.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-State is that the workman had not completed 240 days of service during the preceding twelve calendar months. However, the said contention does not find support from the material which was considered by the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence available on record, including the muster rolls Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-8, returned a finding that the workman had completed more than 240 days of service during the relevant period.

The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact based upon the material available on the record. Learned State counsel despite her able assistance has not been able to point out any material which was either ignored by the Labour Court or any perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the appreciation of evidence warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Merely because another view of the evidence may be possible is not, by itself, sufficient ground for this Court to interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court, particularly when the finding is based upon the documentary evidence produced before it.

In the present case, the Labour Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, found the workman entitled to the relief granted under the impugned award. No ground has been made out warranting interference with the said award.

It is also relevant to notice that operation of the impugned award was stayed vide order dated 29.03.2001 subject to compliance with Section 17-B of the Act. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 05.02.2026, the petitioner-State was directed to file a specific affidavit regarding compliance with Section 17-B of the Act.

Learned State counsel submits that the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act have duly been complied with and that the requisite amount has already been paid to the legal representatives of the deceased workman. The said fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1(i) to 1(vi).

The compliance with Section 17-B of the Act, however, is only in the nature of statutory interim relief during the pendency of proceedings challenging the award and does not determine the merits of the challenge to the award. The substantive challenge having been found devoid of merit for the reasons recorded hereinabove, no interference with the impugned award is called for.

Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.