Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board Through ... vs Kulwaran Singh C/O S.P. Sood on 8 May, 2009
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 6985 of 2009.
Date of Decision : May 08, 2009.
Punjab State Electricity Board through Additional Superintendent
Engineer (Operation) Division, Hoshiarpur. ....... Petitioner.
Versus.
Kulwaran Singh C/o S.P. Sood, M.A.LL.B, General Secretary,
Trade Union Counsel, Back Street Doraha,
District Ludhiana, and another. ....... Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure-P-1), vide which the Labour Court while exercising its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act had directed the petitioner-management to offer the workman his job as daily wager subject to availability of work on which he was working prior to his appointment as work-charge. The Labour Court has further given liberty to the Management to deny to the workman under the Rules, the benefit of bogus working days which was extended to him while offering the post of work-charge. The Labour Court had also held him not entitled to back wages because the posting which he got on the basis of bogus working days be not given to him.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court had proceeded to decide the matter on the basis that the inquiry officer had not given a categoric finding with regard to the workman being responsible for claiming the bogus certificate. He contends that when the inquiry officer had C.W.P. No. 6985 of 2009. -2- held that the records on the basis of which he was claiming he had worked, was not available with the division, the only finding which would ultimately come in was that he had used a bogus certificate, since it was not substantiated by the records. The contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner may be correct but when we see the relief granted by the Labour Court, the Labour Court had agreed with the contention of the petitioner as it had specifically said that the workman would not be entitled to the benefit of bogus working days which was extended to him while offering him the post of work-charge as the same was not substantiated. The only direction which had been given by the Labour Court to the petitioner was to offer the workman his job as daily wager subject to availability of work. The powers exercised under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court in the present case, does not call for interference by this Court.
In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 08, 2009.
sjks.
Whether referred to the Reporter. - Yes / No.