Punjab-Haryana High Court
Divisional Forest Officer vs Mange Ram And Another on 22 November, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 25636 of 2013 & 1
other connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 25636 of 2013
Date of Decision: 22.11.2013
Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat
.....Petitioners.
Versus
Mange Ram and another
...Respondents
2 Civil Writ Petition No. 25637 of 2013
Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat
.....Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Anguri and another
...Respondents
3 Civil Writ Petition No. 25638 of 2013
Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat
.....Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Laxmi and another
...Respondents
4 Civil Writ Petition No. 25639 of 2013
Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat
.....Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Ompati and another
...Respondents
Kumar Amit
2013.12.06 09:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 25636 of 2013 & 2
other connected cases.
5 Civil Writ Petition No. 25640 of 2013
Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat
.....Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Ramphal and another
...Respondents
6 Civil Writ Petition No. 25641 of 2013
Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat
.....Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Kela Devi and another
...Respondents
7 Civil Writ Petition No. 25642 of 2013
Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat
.....Petitioners.
Versus
Satbir and another
...Respondents
8 Civil Writ Petition No. 25718 of 2013
Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat
.....Petitioners.
Versus
Balwan and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana
for the petitioner.
***
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Kumar Amit
2013.12.06 09:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 25636 of 2013 & 3
other connected cases.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (Oral)
This order will dispose of a batch of eight writ petitions bearing CWP No. 25636 of 2013 (Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Vs. Mange Ram and another), CWP No. 25637 of 2013 (Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Vs. Smt. Anguri and another), CWP No. 25638 of 2013 (Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Vs. Smt. Laxmi and another), CWP No. 25639 of 2013 (Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Vs. Smt. Ompati and another), CWP No. 25640 of 2013 (Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Vs. Smt. Ramphal and another), CWP No. 25641 of 2013 (Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Vs. Smt. Kela Devi and another), CWP No. 25642 of 2013 (Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Vs. Satbir and another) and CWP No. 25718 of 2013 (Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Vs. Balwan and another). All these writ petitions have been filed by the same management against the similar awards passed by the learned Labour Court in identical set of facts and circumstances.
Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that when the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with attendance record of the workmen attached between Annexures P-2 and P-3, without putting any Annexure thereon, except to cut a sorry figure, he had no explanation, whatsoever. Similarly, the certificate dated 12.11.2013 signed by the Divisional Forest Officer which is placed between the page bearing court fee and the page bearing list of dates and events has been found to be Kumar Amit factually incorrect as well as contrary to the record. 2013.12.06 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 25636 of 2013 & 4 other connected cases.
All these petitions have been prepared in most negligent manner, to say the least. The attendance record, which has been placed before this Court for the first time was not a part of the judicial record before the learned Labour Court, because it was never produced by the petitioner- management. Now, the petitioner-management was trying to play smart but caught on the wrong fact. There is no denial to these facts.
So far as the facts of these cases are concerned, the same are hardly in dispute. The respondents-workmen had rendered about 8 to 12 years of service. Despite rendering fairly long service by all the respondents-workmen, their services were terminated abruptly, without complying with the mandatory provisions of law contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act' for short). Respondents- workmen raised the industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings failed and the industrial dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court for its adjudication. Parties led their respective evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that since the respondents-workmen have duly discharged their initial onus by proving that they have completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months before termination of their services. However, the learned Labour Court, while moulding the relief qua back wages, granted only 25% back wages to the respondents-workmen and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service. Hence these writ petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondents-workmen in each case have failed to discharge the initial onus Kumar Amit 2013.12.06 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 25636 of 2013 & 5 other connected cases.
to prove that they have completed 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months before termination of their services. He further submits that once the respondents-workmen could not prove that they have completed 240 days, they were not entitled for statutory protection under Section 25-F of the ID Act. He also submits that the learned Labour Court proceeded on an erroneous approach while drawing adverse inference against the petitioner-management for not producing the complete relevant official record. He next contended that whatever record was available, was produced before the learned Labour Court whereas in some case, record was weeded out because of which the same could not be produced. In such a situation, learned Labour Court ought not to have drawn adverse inference against the petitioner-management. Finally, he prays for setting aside the the impugned award by allowing the present writ petitions.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the cases, these are not fit cases warranting interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record that the respondents-workmen had rendered fairly long period of service varying from 8 to 12 years in all these cases. It is neither pleaded nor argued on behalf of the petitioner- management that services of the respondents-workmen were terminated because of non availability of work. Further, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner-management did not even make any effort to comply with the Kumar Amit 2013.12.06 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 25636 of 2013 & 6 other connected cases.
mandatory provisions of law contained in Section 25-F of ID Act before terminating services of the respondents-workmen.
The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents-workmen failed to prove that they had completed service of 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months before the date of termination of their services, has also been found to be factually incorrect and without any merit. A close perusal of the impugned award would make it crystal clear that the respondents-workmen have duly discharged their initial onus, which was on them to prove that they had, as a matter of fact, rendered continuous service of 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months before the date of termination of their services. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Labour Court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned awards and the same deserve to be upheld.
It is a common knowledge that office record always remains in the custody of office itself. Once the respondents-workmen, after discharging their initial onus, move an application for summoning the relevant official record, it becomes bounden duty of the management to produce the complete relevant record before the learned Labour Court, so as to show its bonafide. Once it is not done, the learned Labour Court would do well while drawing adverse inference against the management. In spite of the fact that the law as well as equity are in favour of the respondents-workmen, the learned labour Court, in its wisdom, thought it appropriate to mould the relief while granting only 25% back wages. However, it is made clear that since the issue of back wages is not involved here in all these cases, it is Kumar Amit 2013.12.06 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 25636 of 2013 & 7 other connected cases.
being left open lest it should prejudice the rights of any of the parties.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Labour Court. Further, no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner-management, while passing the impugned awards. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that learned Labour Court has proceeded on a legally correct approach, while passing the impugned awards and the same deserve to be upheld for this reason, as well.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that all these writ petitions are misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Before parting with the order, a word of caution for the officials/officers of the petitioner-department to be more careful in future while preparing and filing any type of petition with special reference to the certificate, referred to hereinabove.
Resultantly, all these writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 22.11.2013 Kumar AmitAK Sharma 2013.12.06 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document