Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1255 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Inderjit Singh
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/05/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-Punjab State
Electricity Board (for short ’the Board’).
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
3. Respondent made a complaint that though he continued
to work as a Carpenter, his services were illegally dispensed
with from 30.4.1997 onwards. On the failure of conciliation
proceedings, the dispute raised by the respondent was referred
for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala
(hereinafter referred to as the ’Labour Court’). By award dated
22.2.2005, the Labour Court held that the termination of the
services of the respondent was illegal and he was entitled to be
re-instated with continuity of service and also was entitled to
receive 50% of the back wages. It was further directed that if
the amount is not paid to the respondent-workman, he was
entitled to interest on the said amount. The reinstatement
was directed to be done on the workman reporting for duty.
4. In a nutshell the stand of the workman was as follows:
He was working with the management in the
maintenance sub-division as carpenter from 31.3.1993 to
30.4.1997. His duty was at the residential and other buildings
of the management. The work was assigned to him by Junior
Engineer Daulat Ram. The said Junior Engineer had issued
several documents from which it is clear that he was working
as claimed. The workman examined himself as a witness.
Management produced several documents to show that the
claim was absolutely frivolous. The claim that the workman
was working w.e.f. 31.3.1993 to 30.4.1997 continuously was
without any basis. It was further submitted that Daulat Ram
was not officially competent to give any certificate as claimed
to have been issued by him. The High Court accepted the
claim of the workman that he was continuously working from
31.3.1993 to 30.4.1997. Accordingly, the writ petition was
dismissed.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the High Court has lost sight of the
fact that the workman has not adduced any evidence to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
establish that he was appointed w.e.f. 31.3.1993. On the
contrary, he accepted that he received wages for the period
from 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1997 after putting the signatures on the
muster roll. He has categorically stated that he was appointed
as a Carpenter by the respondent-management on 1.4.1996.
It is also stated that muster rolls were produced for the entire
period which clearly indicated that he had not worked for the
period he claimed to have worked.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the statement of the witness i.e. the claimant
and the materials on record clearly substantiate claim of the
respondent.
7. At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of the
averments made by the claimant. In the claim petition it is
stated that he worked continuously under the management
from 31.3.1993 to 30.4.1997. But in his evidence before the
Labour Court, he has stated as follows:
"I got vocational training for the period
31.3.1993 to 30.4.1995. I was appointed as
carpenter by the respondent management on
1.4.1996. I used to get my wages after putting
my signature on the revenue stamp affixed on
the muster roll. I have received my wages for
the period 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1997. After
completion my apprenticeship of two years, I
was appointed as carpenter on 1.4.1996 by the
SDO. No written appointment letter was issued
as I was employed on daily wage basis."
8. Thus there is categorical admission that he was
appointed on 1.4.1996. No detail of the vocational training has
been tendered in evidence. It was also not stated in the claim
petition or in evidence as to who sent the respondent for
training. There is not even reference to the so called vocational
training in the claim petition. It is also to be noticed that the
evidence tendered by the respondent was contradictory in
terms. At one place he stated that he got vocational training
for a period from 31.3.1993 to 30.4.1995. Nothing has been
stated for the period from 1.5.1995 to 31.3.1996. At another
place the respondent stated that after completion of
apprenticeship of two years he was appointed. No material
has been brought on record to substantiate the claim of
apprenticeship.
9. Above being the position, orders of the Labour Court and
the High Court are clearly unsustainable and are set aside.
The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.