Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhuna Co-Operative Sugar Mill Ltd., ... vs Mohinder Singh And Another on 13 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001(90)FLR179], (2001)ILLJ494P&H, (2000)126PLR548
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court (respondent No. 2) by which it was held that the workman respondent No. 1 was entitled to reinstatement with continuity and all other consequential service benefits and that the termination of services of workman was neither in order nor justified.
2. The workman was working with the petitioner when, according to the workman, his services were terminated. The matter was referred to the Labour Court which passed the impugned order. The case of the workman is that he was employed as a Sweeper on the wages of Rs. 1,400/- per month and, later on, his wages were increased to Rs. 1,600/- but he was not paid at the increased rate. He has further stated that his services were orally terminated with effect from February 20, 1995 without any notice or compensation and after terminating his services, one Mr. Suresh was employed at his place. He has challenged his termination.
3. The petitioner had pleaded in its written statement that the workman was appointed as a Sweeper in January, 1992 on daily wages and he had left the job of his own and did not turn up. During this period, his work was also not satisfactory and since he had left the work on his own, there was, no violation of any provisions of the Act.
4. The Labour Court has held that there was specific plea of the workman that he had continuously worked for a period of more than 240 days and it was not specifically denied or disputed in the written statement. So, the same would be deemed to have been admitted.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that a specific plea was taken in the written statement that the workman had left his service of his own accord and that he had not worked for 240 days. So far as the finding of Labour Court that the workman had worked continuously with effect from November 19, 1991 to February 20, 1995 and that he had not abandoned his job is concerned, we do not find any infirmity. In the written statement before the Labour Court, Annexure P2, there is no denial that the workman has not worked for 240 days.
6. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 102 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act), the dispute, if any, has to be decided by the Arbitrator and that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. The counsel for the workman has placed reliance on Bhuna Co-operative Sugar Mill, Bhuna, District Fatehabad v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar and another, 1993(3) Recent Services Judgments page 202. This is a judgment of Division Bench and it has been held that the question as to whether Section 102 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 has to be answered in the negative. The judgment is in the case of present petitioner and the petitioner should not raise this plea unless it is shown that the judgment has been set aside if, or was not approved by the Apex Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that sugar Mill is not an industry and it has only seasonal work and, therefore, Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted. He has argued that being a seasonal work workers are not employed for a fixed period. As against this, the counsel for workman has read before us paragraph No. 10 of the impugned award. It has been mentioned by the Labour Court in the said paragraph that in cross-examination, Rajinder Singh, MW-I has also admitted that the work of Sweeper in the Co-operative Mill is continuous and regular. It has also been admitted by him that number of Sweepers work and the Mill maintains their seniority and that there was no proof to show that Mohinder Singh workman was employed on daily wages. It is not shown as to how a Sugar Mill is not an industry.
8. The next contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the workman has left the job on his own. It has been observed by the Labour Court in paragraph 10 of the award that there was no proof that the workman had left the job on his own. Moreover, it has been observed in paragraph No. 15 of the award by the Labour Court that "onus to prove abandonment was no the management. There was no positive, cogent or reliable evidence to prove the same. Simple bald and uncorroborated statement of Shri Rajinder Singh MW-1, in examination-in-chief that Mohinder Singh had left the work on his own, is neither trust-worthy nor sufficient to prove abandonment. He himself could not stand by the scrutiny of cross-examination where he has to admit that there is no proof to show that Mohinder Singh had left the work at his own." We do not find any infirmity with the above findings and affirm the same.
9. The next point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding back wages. The Labour Court has awarded 50% back wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the workman has himself admitted that during the period after his services were terminated, he was casually earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month on daily wages. The pay of workman was Rs. 1,400/- as per the argument of counsel for the petitioner. The termination of the services of the petitioner was in the year 1995 and, therefore, earning of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month cannot be said to be a gainful employment and award of 50% of back wages cannot be said to be bad.
10. As a result, we find that there is no merit in this petition which is consequently dismissed.