Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kiran Pal vs Presiding Officer on 17 May, 2010
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No.35 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.5.2010
Kiran Pal
-----Appellant
Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present:- Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
---
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against award of the Labour Court.
2. The workman was employed with the management as a Sweeper. Against order of termination of his services, he raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act').
3. The Labour Court rejected the claim of the appellant holding that there was no violation of section 25-F of the Act as retrenchment compensation was duly paid. It was observed that initially, the workman was appointed as Apprentice which period was further extended and thereafter, his services were LPA No.35 of 2010 (O&M) 2 terminated after paying compensation by way of abundant caution.
4. The workman challenged the finding with regard to the period of service rendered by him with a view to submit that the compensation paid was less than the amounts stipulated.
5. Learned Single Judge did not accept this submission in view of admission of the workman in his cross examination that he duly received the amount of compensation.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that burden of proof of period of service was on the management. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, AIR 2010 SC 1236.
8. We are unable to accept this submission. Concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court as well as by learned Single Judge about the period of service rendered. Burden of proving the length of service was on the workman. In the judgment relied upon, it was held that the burden of proof shifted to employer in the facts and circumstances of that case. It was held that the management LPA No.35 of 2010 (O&M) 3 failed to produce the record which was summoned and stand of the management was contradictory. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts when the management has produced the record before the Labour Court.
9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
May 17, 2010 (Alok Singh)
'gs' Judge