Delhi High Court
Dharamveer vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce And Ors. on 28 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2008)IILLJ264DEL
Author: Rekha Sharma
Bench: Rekha Sharma
JUDGMENT Rekha Sharma, J.
1. Dharamveer who was employed as temporary Peon-cum-Messenger with Oriental Bank of Commerce has filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the award dated July 27, 2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, in I.D. No. 157/1999.
The question which fell for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal was "whether the action of the Management of the Oriental Bank of Commerce in terminating the services of Dharamveer as temporary Peon-cum-Messenger with effect from December 25, 1997 was just, fair and legal" If not, what relief was he entitled to and from what date?
2. The case set up by the workman was that he was employed as a casual labourer/daily rated employee and has worked for more than 240 days, to be precise, 635 days till December 25, 1997. Therefore, it was claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which requires giving of one month's notice before his services were terminated.
3. The Bank's case, on the other hand, was that the petitioner was being engaged for a short period as per the requirement of the Bank and, therefore, his engagement was need based.
4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led before it held that the workman could not prove that he had worked for more than 240 days continuously so as to attract the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. A perusal of the award shows that the workman in order to prove his case placed on record photocopies of the Attendance Register B-52 to B-69 and photocopies of letters dated March 27, 1997 and September 29, 1997.
6. According to the Management, letters dated March 27, 1997 and September 29, 1997 were addressed to the Manager of State Bank of India, Bazpur. These letters were supposed to be delivered by the workman to the addressee and he had counter-signed on these letters to establish his identity that he was the person who had been assigned the job of delivering those letters to the appropriate authority. The letters, it was contended, did not in any way establish the employment of the workman with the Management on regular casual basis. As regard the photocopies of the attendance register B-52 to B-69, the Management denied that these documents, were extracts from the Attendance Register.
7. The Management also made reference to the cross-examination of the workman where he admitted that he was initially paid Rs. 300/-, thereafter Rs. 600/- and then Rs. 700/-. In view of his this admission, it was submitted, that had the workman been a casual labourer or daily rated employee for the entire month, then he would not have received wages like Rs. 300/-, Rs. 600/- or Rs. 700/-. In such an eventuality, he would have received not less than Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- which were the minimum wages in the year 1996-97. Hence, it was argued, that evidence on record neither proved that he was a daily rated workman with the Bank nor that he had worked for 240 days continuously either in 1996 or 1997.
8. During the course of arguments before me, it has been conceded by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the evidence which was brought on record by the petitioner was not sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously preceding one year of the date of his termination. His case is that since it is the Management who was in possession of the record, he could not lay his hands on it and could produce no more evidence than what he had produced. As the Management has disputed before me and so also before the Industrial Tribunal that the workman was a casual rated employee with it or had worked for 240 days continuously, it was for the workman to prove his case. He has admittedly not done so. I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.