Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Om Patti vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 May, 2010
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.3080 of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.3080 of 2001
Date of Decision:- 18.05.2010
Smt.Om Patti ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana,
for the respondents.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 8.12.2000 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-worklady on the ground that she has not been able to prove before the Labour Court that she had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her termination and further no evidence has been led by her that juniors to her were either retained in service or were still working.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitoner was appointed as a daily wage water carrier on 19.8.1993 on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband on 26.7.1993, who was working as a Clerk in Haryana Roadways, Panipat. She continued to work as such till she was removed from service on 15.5.1994, but by that time she had completed more than 240 days in service. She was terminated from service C.W.P.No.3080 of 2001 -2- without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as she was not given any compensation, notice or pay in lieu thereof. He further contends that one Santro Devi in Karnal Depot and Manoj Kumar, Helper and Anand in Panipat were retained in service, thereby violating Section 25-G and H of the Act. He contends that the learned Labour Court has not taken into consideration the photostat copy of the attendance register which was placed on record of the Labour Court as Exhibit W-1/11, which showed that he petitioner-worklady had worked with the respondents in the month of April 1994. The respondent-Management had admitted that she had worked with the respondent-Management upto 31.3.1994 and, therefore, if the period of 30 days of April 1994 is added to the period of service rendered by the petitioner, she would complete more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months and, thus, would be entitled to the benefit of the protection under Section 25-F of the Act. He, on this basis, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the photostat copy of the attendance register Exhibit W-1/11, reliance on which has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner, was not proved before the Labour Court. The said document was tendered by the representative of the petitioner before the Labour Court but no records were summoned to prove the said document to be authentic, especially when the said copy of the attendance register does not contain signatures of any of the Authorities as to who had prepared and verified the attendance register. The said document has, thus, rightly not been relied upon by the learned Labour C.W.P.No.3080 of 2001 -3- Court while counting the days the work-lady had put in service with the respondent-Management in the 12 preceding months. No evidence has come on record with regard to the retention of persons allegedly junior to her in service, which would show that she was senior to Santro Devi, Manoj Kumar and Anand. His further contention is that the petitioner who was working in Haryana Roadways, Panipat Depot whereas Santro Devi was working in Karnal and, therefore, she could not be compared for the purpose of treating her junior to the petitioner. Similarly, Manoj Kumar belonged to a different category who was a helper and the category to which Anand belonged, has not been specified although they were working in Panipat. Therefore, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner on this count also.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The date of appointment of the petitioner-work-lady is not in dispute that she was appointed on 19.8.1993 on daily wage basis as a water carrier in Haryana Roadways Depot, Panipat. According to the respondent-Management, her services were discontinued as no longer required, with effect from 31.3.1994 vide order Exhibit M-2. It is not in dispute that if the period during which the worklady had worked with the respondents is taken to be upto 31.3.1994, she does not complete 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her termination and, therefore, month of April, 1994, during which as alleged by her that she had worked with the respondent, is crucial as inclusion of that period would mean that she had completed more than 240 days in service. The document in support of her claim relied upon by the petitioner is a photostat copy of the attendance register Exhibit W-1/11. The said photostat copy of the C.W.P.No.3080 of 2001 -4- attendance register does not bear the signatures of any official who had prepared and verified this attendance register. The said document was not proved before the Labour Court as the petitioner-worklady had not summoned the original records from the Management. In the absence of the document(s) being proved before the Labour Court, especially when the said document had been denied by the respondents, no reliance can be made on the said documents. The Labour Court has, thus, rightly not taken Exhibit W-1/11 into consideration while calculating the days for which the petitioner had worked with the respondent-Management. Thus, the petitioner does not complete 240 days in service with the respondents. There is no document on the record of the Labour Court which could prove that the petitioner had worked with them during the month of May, 1994 as she has alleged that her services were dispensed with, with effect from 15.5.1994 and, thus, month of May also cannot be taken into consideration.
As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Sections 25-H and G of the Act have been violated as juniors to the petitioner-work-lady have been retained in service, suffice it to say, the three juniors are alleged to have been retained in service, one is Santro Devi but she is working in Haryana Roadways, Karnal Depot whereas the petitioner is an employee of Haryana Roadways, Panipat Depot and, therefore, there can be no comparison between the two as the appointing Authorities are different. As regards, Manoj Kumar, he is a helper whereas the petitioner belongs to the category of water carrier and, therefore, no comparison between the two can be made. Anand, another person who is stated to be junior to the petitioner, although is at Panipat, but his category has not been specified and, therefore, no benefit on this count C.W.P.No.3080 of 2001 -5- also can be claimed by the petitioner. That apart, there is no evidence led by the petitioner in support of her contention that the persons junior to her are still working. That being so, the petitioner is also not entitled to protection of Section 25-G and H of the Act.
The findings as recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified and based upon the evidence brought on record before it. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
May 18, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters. Yes/No.