Tika Ram v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, NIT, Faridabad & Ors.

Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.K.Sud, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 02.06.2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Faridabad, vide which the reference made to the Labour Court has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to any relief. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is an admitted position that the workman had completed 238 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination i.e. 02.07.1996. He CWP No. 19147 of 2003 2 contends that the Labour Court has not, in its right perspective, taken into consideration the fact that the respondents-Management has resorted to an unfair labour practice, firstly, by changing the name of the petitioner from Tika Ram to Tek Ram and then to Tikaya Ram although the name of his father has, all through, been rightly mentioned as Shyam Lal. By changing the name of the petitioner, an effort was made that he should not complete 240 days in service. That apart, he submits that whenever the sanction was sought for appointment of the workman like the petitioner, a note was appended thereon that the workman does not complete 240 days if the said sanction is granted. He contends that the Management has intentionally not produced the muster rolls for November, 1995 as this would have proved that the workman had worked with them if not in October and December, 1995 at least in November, 1995. To show that the workman had worked with the Management in November, 1995, counsel for the petitioner-workman has placed reliance on Ex.. WW-2/1 to Ex. WW- 2/4. According to him, these exhibits are of different dates of November and if not of November, the same are of October or December, which would further show that the petitioner had worked with the respondents during the period which has been denied by the respondents. If that period is taken into consideration, the workman would complete more than 240 days in service and would, if not entitled to reinstatement, be entitled to compensation for the period he had worked with the respondents. On this basis, he prays that the impugned award be set aside by allowing the present writ petition. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the relevant period for taking into consideration the 12 preceding months to calculate the period of days put in by the workman, by the Management CWP No. 19147 of 2003 3 would be 12 months prior to 02.07.1996 when it is alleged that the services of the workman were terminated. The muster rolls, for the period he had worked with the Management, have been produced and apart from that muster rolls for the period October and December, 1995 have also been produced. In the muster rolls for October and December, 1995, which have been placed on record as Exs. M-8 and M-9 by Khem Chand, Junior Engineer, who appeared as MW-1, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned either as Tika Ram, Tek Ram or Tikaya Ram, as is alleged by the petitioner. For the period November, 1995, he contends that the Court, on its own to ascertain the truthfulness of the assertions made by the parties, had summoned the A.P.R. register maintained by the respondents, by which the salary is paid to the workmen by the respondents-Management after obtaining their signatures. These documents were again produced by Sh. Khem Chand, Junior Engineer, which pertained to the period 01.09.1995 to 31.12.1995. In this register also, the name of the petitioner either as Tika Ram, Tikaya Ram and Tek Ram does not figure which goes beyond doubt to show that for these three months', the petitioner had not worked with the Management. As regards the assertion that the respondents with a mala-fide intention to deprive him of the benefit of the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act had changed the name of the petitioner, counsel for the respondents submits that it has been categorically admitted by the Management witness that due to a typographical error, in July, 1995, the name of the petitioner finds mention as Tek Ram instead of Tika Ram. However, it has been admitted that the workman has worked with the respondents-Management and the said period has been taken into consideration for computing the days, for which he had worked with the Management. His contention is that CWP No. 19147 of 2003 4 Ex. W-2/1 to Ex. W-2/2 were produced by Sh. Dayal Chand Sharma, who appeared as WW-2. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he does not identify the signatures of Khem Chand, Junior Engineer on the said documents. In the absence of the documents being not signed by any senior officer, who is competent to sign the same, the documents could not have been taken into consideration by the Court for granting any benefit to the petitioner and has rightly been ignored by the Labour Court. He, on this basis, submits that the finding given by the Labour Court is in accordance with law and based on the evidence as led by the parties, both oral and documentary, and thus, does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the Award and the evidence, which has been produced before the Labour Court and on consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the facts, which cull out, are that as per the assertions made by the workman, his services were terminated on

02.07.1996, therefore, 12 preceding months from the date of his termination would be the relevant period as far as the computation of the days, for which he had worked with the Management, for determination. It is an admitted position that if the period from October, 1995 to December, 1995 is not taken into consideration, the days, for which the petitioner- workman has worked with the Management, comes to 238 days. The benefit of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, can therefore, be claimed by the workman only if the period from October, 1995 to December, 1995 is taken into consideration or if the workman is able to prove that he was in service during this period with the respondents. CWP No. 19147 of 2003 5 As far as October, 1995 and December, 1995 is concerned, Khem Chand, Junior Engineer, who appeared as MW-1 for the Management, has produced muster rolls for these two months as Ex. M-8 and Ex. M-9. A perusal of these two documents shows that the name of the petitioner either as Tika Ram, Tikaya Ram or Tek Ram, does not figure, therefore, these two months are totally ruled out for giving benefit to the petitioner. The period, therefore, left out is November, 1995. The Labour Court, in order to ascertain the truthfulness of this aspect as to whether the workman had worked with the Management in November, 1995, summoned the record from the Management, which was the A.P.R. register maintained by the respondents, in which the entries are made with regard to the salary paid to the workmen by the respondents by obtaining their signatures. Khem Chand, Junior Engineer, produced the summoned records i.e. A.P.R. register pertaining to the period 01.09.1995 to

31.12.1995. He further made a categoric statement that any of the name as Tika Ram, Tikaya Ram and Tek Ram does not figure in the said A.P.R. register. This goes beyond doubt to prove that the petitioner has not worked with the Management in November, 1995 as well. In any case, the assertion of the counsel for the petitioner that the indent Ex. WW-2/1 to Ex. WW-2/4 showed that the workman had worked in November, 1995 cannot be accepted when his own witness, who produced them, did not identify the signatures of Khem Chand, Junior Engineer on the said documents. Further, when Khem Chand, Junior Engineer was summoned by the Court to produce the records, the petitioner could have confronted him with those documents and the signatures put thereon which would have cleared the mist, if any on the said documents. The petitioner failed to avail of that opportunity and, CWP No. 19147 of 2003 6 therefore, cannot now get any benefit of these documents. Strangely enough, an application for adducing additional evidence was moved by the workman but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn for the reasons best known to him. In the light of the above position, which emerges out after having considered the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties as also keeping in view the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, there is no merit in the present petition and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. February 02, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE