Narinder Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARH **** CWP-22610-2022 DateoofoDecision:o01.08.2023 NARINDERoKUMAR o.....oPETITIONER Versus PRESIDINGoOFFICER,oINDUSTRIALoTRIBUNAL,oPATIALAoAND OTHERS ooooo.....oRESPONDENTS CORAM:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGER Present: Mr.oNeerajoSharma,oAdvocate forotheopetitioner. HARSHoBUNGERoJ.o(ORAL)

¶1Petitioner-workmano(NarinderoKumar)ohasofiledothisopetition underoArticleso226/227oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia,oseekingoaowritoof certiorarioforosettingoasideotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo12.11.2021o(Annexure P-4)opassedobyoIndustrialoTribunal,oPatialao(hereinafteroreferredotooas "theoTribunal");owherebyotheoreferenceoofotheoindustrialodisputeowithoregard tooterminationoofoserviceoofotheoPetitioner-workmanohasobeenodecided againstohim.oAofurtheroprayerohasobeenomadeoforodirectingotheothatothe petitionerobeoreinstatedoinoserviceowithoalloconsequentialobenefits.

¶2Briefly,otheoPetitioneroraisedoanoindustrialodisputeoquaohisoillegal terminationobyoservingoaodemandonoticeodatedo15.09.2018.oThereafter,oa reference o (bearing o no. o 36/2019) o was o made o to o the o Tribunal o for 2023.11.30 17:25 adjudication,whichoisoreadoasounder:o "Whether o the o termination o of o services o of o workman NarinderoKumaroisoimproperoandoun-justified?oIfoyes,oto whatoreliefoandotoowhichoextentoisoheoentitled?"

¶3Asoperotheoclaimostatementofiledobyopetitioner,oheoclaimedoto haveobeenoappointedowithorespondent-odepartmentothroughorespondentono.o4 (VillageoWateroandSanitationoCommittee,oSaferaoBlockoSanour,oPatiala)oas PumpoOperatoroono27.04.2004ovideoResolutionoNo.o26odatedo27.04.2004oas peronotificationoNo.o13/49/2003-5B&R-11/149.oPetitioneroclaimedotoohave workedouptoo31.07.2018,owhenosuddenlyohisoservicesowereoterminatedoon

01.08.2018oinoanoillegaloandoarbitraryomannerobyoadoptingounfairolabour practice.oPetitioneroclaimedotoohaveoworkedoforo240odaysoinoeachoyearoas welloinotheolastocalendaroyear.oItowasoalsooclaimedobyotheoPetitioner-workman thatojuniorotoohimohasobeenoretainedoinoserviceoandoevenonewoappointments hadobeenomadeobyomanagementothereforeohisoservicesowereoterminatedoin violationoofoSectionso25-F,o25-Go&o25-HoofoIndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947 (hereinafteroreferredotooaso'theo1947oAct')o.oPetitioneroclaimedothatohis terminationoisoillegal,ounjustifiedoandoagainstoprinciplesoofonaturalojustice and ocontraryoto otheoprovisions oofotheoIndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947. Accordingly,otheopetitioneroprayedothatoheomayobeoreinstatedoonojobowithofull backowagesoandocontinuityoofoservice.

¶4Theoaforestatedoclaimoofotheopetitioner-workmanowasoopposed byotheorespondent-managementobyosubmittingoitsoreplyowhereinoitowasointer-alia o stated o that o the o water o supply o scheme o has o been o handed o over o to G.P.W.S.C.oono01.04.2004oandoitowasotheoG.P.W.S.C.owhoowereoempowered toohireoservicesobyoenteringointoocontractoinotheiroownoname.oItowasodenied thatothereowasoanyoemployee-employerorelationshipobetweenotheoparties.oItois I attest to the accuracy and alsootheostandoofotheoRespondent-omanagementothatotheoworkmanodidonot workowithoitoforotheoclaimedoperiodoandothereowasonoorecordoavailableowith theoofficeoofoRespondent-omanagementoasoregardsotheoemployeesoofothe VillageoWateroSupplyoandoSanitationoCommittee, oSaferaoBlockoSanour, Patiala.oAccordingly,oprayeroforodismissaloofoclaimowasomade.o

¶5Fromotheopleadingsoofotheoparties,otheolearnedoTribunaloframed theofollowingoissues: "1.oWhetherotheoservicesoofoworkmanowereoterminated illegallyoandounlawfullyobyotheorespondent?oOPW

2.oWhetherotheoworkmanoisoentitledotoogetoanyorelief fromotheorespondentoinopresentoreference,oifosooatowhat extent?oOPW

3.oRelief."

¶6In o order o to o prove o his o case/claim,o theo petitioner/workman-NarinderoKumar,oexaminedohimselfoasoWW-1oandoreliedouponotheofollowing documentsoinohisodocumentaryoevidence:- Sr.oNo. Exhibit Document

¶1W1 Affidavit

¶2W2 DemandoNotice

¶3W3 StatementoofoClaim

¶4Mark-A PhotocopyoofoResolutionodatedo27.04.2004

¶5Mark-B PhotocopyoofoProceedingoBookodatedo05.12.2021

¶6Mark-C PhotocopyoofoResolutionodatedo17.02.2024

¶7Mark-D PhotocopyoofoChequeodatedo25.02.2014oinotheonameoof workman

¶8Mark-E PhotocopyoofoProceedingoRegisterodatedo20.04.2011

¶9Mark-F PhotocopyoofoLetterodatedo01.06.2014

¶10Mark-G PhotocopyoofolistoofoMembersoofoCommitteeoconstituted byoVillageoConsumersoandoGramoPanchayat

¶11Mark-H PhotocopyoofoSalaryoCertificate

¶12Mark-I PhotocopyooforepresentationobyoHarioSinghoTohra

¶13Mark-J PhotocopyoofoRepresentationobyoworkman

¶14Mark-K Photocopyooforeceiptsoofopayments Thereafter,otheopetitioner-workmanoclosedohisoevidence.o

¶7Onotheootherohand,otheorespondentsohaveoexaminedoSukhdev 2023.11.30 17:25 SinghoworkingoasoSDEowithoWateroSupplyoandoSanitationoDepartment, PatialaoasoMW-1oThereafter,otheorespondentsoevidenceowasoclosed.

¶8Uponoappreciatingotheomaterialo/oevidenceoavailableoonorecord, theoTribunalobeloworejectedotheoclaimoofotheopetitioner-workmanoand answeredotheoreferenceoagainstotheopetitioner-workmanovideotheoimpugned Awardodatedo12.11.2021o(AnnexureoP-4).

¶9Inotheoaforementionedocircumstances,otheopetitionerohasofiled theoinstantowritopetitionobeforeothisocourt.

¶10Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioneroandoperusedothe paper-bookowithohisoableoassistance.

¶11Itoisowellosettledolawothatotheoonusotooproveothatoaoworkmanohas renderedocontinuousoservice,oi.e.o240odays,oinoprecedingo12ocalendaromonths inotermsoofoSectiono25-Boofotheo1947oActoandoalsootooproveorelationshipoof employeeoandoemployeroisoonotheoworkman.o

¶12Inotheoinstantocase,otheopetitioner-workmanoinoorderotooseek reliefoinotermsoofoSectiono25FoofotheoAct,o1947,owasorequiredotooproveothatohe workedoforo240odaysoinotheo12omonthsoprecedingotheodateowhenoheowas allegedlyoillegallyoterminatedobyorespondent-department.oTherefore,othe relevant operiodowouldobeo12omonthsopriorotoo01.08.2018.Inoorderoto dischargeotheoonusoofoprovingotheoaforestatedofactoofohavingoworkedoforo240 daysoinotheo12omonthsoprecedingotheodateoofohisoallegedlyotermination,othe petitionerogaveohisoownotestimonyoonlyoandodidonotoleadoanyootheroevidence eitheroinotheoformoofostatementoofoanyoco-workerooroanyootheroevidenceoinothe formoofoproofooforeceiptoofosalaryoorowagesoforo240odaysooroanyoorder/record of o appointment o or o engagement o for o the o relevant o period, o however o the workmanoonlyobroughtoonorecordodocumentsowithoregardotoohisoinitial appointment o till o year o 2014, o whereas o there o is o no o material o on o record CWP-22610-2022 -"- sutistantiatin,ot eo!a%tot ato eo%ontinuedotootieoinoem#"o1mentoa!tero&-1/oti"" t eodateoo!o iso%"aimedoterminationodatedo-1.-8.&-18.$#arto!romot eose"!- ser3in,ostatementoo!ot eo#etitioner+o eodidonoto"eadoan1oot eroe3iden%eoto #ro3eot ato eoworkedo!oro&/-oda1soinot eo1&omont so#re%edin,ot eodateow en eowasoa""e,ed"1oterminated($u,ust+o&-18)o01ores#ondent-ode#artment.oItois we""osett"edo"awot atomereoa!!ida3itsoorose"!-ser3in,ostatementsomadeo01ot e %"aimant(workmanowi""onotosu!!i%eoinot eomatteroo!odis% ar,eoo!ot eotiurden #"a%edo01o"awoonot eoworkmanotoo#ro3eot ato eo adoworkedo!oro&/-oda1soin ao,i3eno1ear.oInot isore,ard+ore!eren%eo%anotieomadeotoot e%aseoo!o(unicipal )orpn.ov.o!irioNi*as+o2004,4-o!.)...o211o and o!urendrana/aro&istrict 0anc$a1atov.o&a$1a%$aio2'arsin$+o2005,3-o!))o750.o

¶19Inot eoinstanto%ase+o3ideoim#u,nedoawardodatedo1&.11.&-&1 ($nne.ureoP-/)+o"earnedoPresidin,oO!!i%er+oIndustria"oTritiuna"+oPatia"a2o as returnedot eo!o""owin,o!indin,s:- ;C.It is settled position of law that the strict adherence to the provisions of Evidence Act are not writ large in the nature of enquiry proceedings before the Tribunal under the I.D.A., 1947 and further in order to avoid any second round of proceedings, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to consider the documents placed on record by the claimant/workman. Mark-A resolution dt. 27-04-2004 has been placed record wherein the claimant has been engaged for the employment by Panchayat. Mark-B is the resolution dt. 15-12-2012 wherein it has been resolved that claimant Narinder Singh S/o Raghunandan Lal R/o Safera is working who has requested for enhancement in his salary which was earlier Rs. 4750/- and his salary was resolved to be enhanced to Rs. 7000/- from January 2013, after approval of the higher authorities. Mark-C is the I attest to the accuracy and resolution dt. 17-02-2014 wherein it has been resolved CWP-22610-2022 -#- that salary of claimant is due from July 2013 and amount of Rs. 11,500/- through cheque No. 312328 is being paid and rest of payment will be made later on. Mark-D is the copy of cheque No. 312328 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/- Mark-E is the resolution dt. 20-04-2011 wherein it has been resolved that the claimant is working since 2004 and due to paucity of funds there is difficulty in paying salary of the claimant and it is resolved that after seeking approval of Government, the salary be paid from the maintenance head which is received from the Government. Mark-F is the document wherein vide letter dt. 01-06-2014 the BDPO, Sanour has written to Executive Engineer Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Rajpura that salary of the claimant has not been paid from last eight month due to financial difficulty of the claimant, whether the salary can be paid from the maintenance head. Mark-H is the salary certificate dt. 31-12-2012 issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Safera, wherein it is reflected that the claimant is working since 27-04-2004 at the salary of Rs. 4750/- and his salary is Rs. 57,000/- annually. Mark-K is the document consisting Page 1 to 118 which is also reflect with regard to the employment of the claimant. These documents Mark-A to Mark-K remain un-rebutted as respondent No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte. However, this record as discussed above is only with regard to the initial appointment of the claimant, salary of the claimant etc. till year 2014 and the same has corroborative value only to this extent, whereas there is no material on record substantiating the fact with regard to the employment after 2014 till the date of claimed termination i.e. 01-08-2018. There are mere assertions in the pleadings that service of the claimant were illegally terminated on 01-08-2018. I attest to the accuracy and @""""" TheorelevantoperiodoforobreachoofoSectiono25-FoofotheoI.D. Act,o1947owouldobeo240odaysoinoprecedingotheocalendar yearofromotheodateoofoclaimedoterminationoi.e.o01-08-2018.

7.o SolitaryoselfodepositionoofotheoclaimantoasoWW1oand the o material o on o record o is o not o sufficient o to o prove continuousoemploymentoofotheoclaimantowithorespondents foro240odaysoinoprecedingotheocalendaroyearofromotheodate ofoclaimedoterminationoi.eo01.08.2018.oPerusaloofotheofile alsoorevealsothatonooendeavourohasobeenomadeoonobehalf of o the o claimant o for o seeking o the o record o from o the respondentsobyowayoofomovingoapplicationoforoproduction oforecord.oDuringotheocrossoexamination,onoosuggestion hasobeenoputotooMW1owithoregardingotooworkingoofothe claimantotillo2018.o Onceotheoclaimohasobeenodeniedobyotheorespondent, onusoliesoonotheoclaimantotooshowothatoheohadoinfact workedoforo240odaysoinoaoyear.oHon'bleoSupremeoCourt ofoIndiaoinoRangeoForestoOfficerov.oS.T.oHadimanio2002 AIRoSCo1147ohasoheldothatoonusoliesouponoclaimantoto showothatohehadoinfactoworkedoforo240odaysoinoaoyear,oin theoabsenceoofoproofooforeceiptoofosalaryoorowagesoor record o of o appointment, o filing o of o an o affidavit o by claimant/workmanoisonotosufficientoevidenceotooproveothat claimantohadoworkedoforo240odaysoinoaoyearoprecedingohis termination.o

¶8Inoviewoofotheoaboveodiscrepantoandoinsufficient evidence o on o record o the o Tribunal o concludes o that o the claimantohaso failedotooproveothat oterminationo of ohis servicesowasoillegaloandounlawful.oTheoclaimantoisonot entitledotooanyoreliefofromotheorespondents.oAccordingly. IssuesoNo.o1o&o2oareoansweredoagainstotheoclaimant.o RELIEF

¶9Inoviewoofotheofindingsoonotheoissuesoabove,othis referenceoifoansweredoagainstotheoclaimantoholdingothat 2023.11.30 17:25 theoclaimantohasofailedotooproveothatoterminationoofohis servicesoisoimproperoandounjustified.o…."

¶14TheocounseloforotheoPetitionerohasonotobeenoableotoodislodgeothe aforestatedofindingsoreturnedobyoTribunalobelow.oNeitherobeforeotheoTribunal norobeforeothisocourt,otheoPetitionerohasonotobeenoableotooshowothatohe workedoforo240odaysoino12omonthsoprecedingotheodateoofohisoterminationoand inoabsenceoofotheosame,onooreliefocanobeograntedotootheopetitioner.o

15.o Further,otheoperipheriesoofothisocourtotooexerciseocertiorari jurisdiction o stands o authoritativelyo delineated o in oSyed o Yakoob o v. o K.S. Radhakrishnan,oAIRo1964oSupremeoCourto477,owhereinoHon'bleoSupreme Courtoheldoasounder: "7.oTheoquestionoaboutotheolimitsoofotheojurisdictionoofoHigh CourtsoinoissuingoaowritoofocertiorariounderoArticleo226ohas beenofrequentlyoconsideredobyothisoCourtoandotheotrueolegal positionoinothatobehalfoisonoolongeroinodoubt.oAowritoof certiorariocanobeoissuedoforocorrectingoerrorsoofojurisdiction committedobyoinferiorocourtsoorotribunalso:otheseoareocases whereoordersoareopassedobyoinferiorocourtsoorotribunalsowithout jurisdiction,ooroisoinoexcessoofoit,ooroasoaoresultoofofailureoto exerciseojurisdiction.oAowritocanosimilarlyobeoissuedowhereoin exerciseoofojurisdictionoconferredoonoit,otheoCourtooroTribunal actsoillegallyooroimproperly,oasoforoinstance,oitodecidesoa questionowithoutogivingoanoopportunityotoobeoheardotootheoparty affectedobyotheoorder,oorowhereotheoprocedureoadoptedoin dealingowithotheodisputeoisoopposedotooprinciplesoofonatural justice.oThereois,ohowever,onoodoubtothatotheojurisdictionoto issueoaowritoofocertiorarioisoaosupervisoryojurisdictionoandothe CourtoexercisingoitoisonotoentitledotooactoasoanoappellateoCourt. Thisolimitationonecessarilyomeansothatofindingsoofofactoreached byotheoinferioroCourtooroTribunaloasoresultoofotheoappreciation of o evidence o cannot o be o reopened o or o questioned o in o writ proceedings.oAnoerroroofolawowhichoisoapparentoonotheofaceoof authenticity of this document/judgment theorecordocanobeocorrectedobyoaowrit,obutonotoanoerroroofofact, howeverograveoitomayoappearotoobe.oInoregardotooaofindingoof factorecordedobyotheoTribunal,oaowritoofocertiorariocanobeoissued ifoitoisoshownothatoinorecordingotheosaidofinding,otheoTribunal hadoerroneouslyorefusedotooadmitoadmissibleoandomaterial evidence,oorohadoerroneouslyoadmittedoinadmissibleoevidence whichohasoinfluencedotheoimpugnedofinding.oSimilarly,oifoa findingoofofactoisobasedoononooevidence,othatowouldobeoregarded asoanoerroroofolawowhichocanobeocorrectedobyoaowritoof certiorari.oInodealingowithothisocategoryoofocases,ohowever,owe mustoalwaysobearoinomindothatoaofindingoofofactorecordedobyothe Tribunalocannotobeochallengedoinoproceedingsoforoaowritoof certiorari o on o the o ground o that o the o relevant o and o material evidenceoadducedobeforeotheoTribunalowasoinsufficientoor inadequateotoosustainotheoimpugnedofinding.oTheoadequacyoor sufficiencyoofoevidenceoledoonoaopointoandotheoinferenceoofofact toobeodrawnofromotheosaidofindingoareowithinotheoexclusive jurisdictionoofotheoTribunal,oandotheosaidopointsocannotobe agitatedobeforeoaowritoCourt.oItoisowithinotheseolimitsothatothe jurisdictionoconferredoonotheoHighoCourtsounderoArticleo226oto issueoaowritoofocertiorariocanobeolegitimatelyoexercisedo(vide HarioVishnuoKamathov.oAhmadoIshaque,o1955-1oSCRo1104: NagendraoNathov.oCommr.oofoHillsoDivision,o1958oSCRo1240 andoKaushalyaoDeviov.oBachittaroSingh,oAIRo1960oSupreme Courto1168.

8.oItois,oofocourse,onotoeasyotoodefineooroadequatelyodescribe whatoanoerroroofolawoapparentoonotheofaceoofotheorecordomeans. Whatocanobeocorrectedobyoaowritohasotoobeoanoerroroofolaw;obut itomustobeosuchoanoerroroofolawoasocanobeoregardedoasoone whichoisoapparentoonotheofaceoofotheorecord.oWhereoitois manifestooroclearothatotheoconclusionoofolaworecordedobyoan inferior oCourt o or o Tribunal o is o based o on o an o obvious o mis-interpretationoofotheorelevantostatutoryoprovision,oorosometimes inoignoranceoofoit,ooromayobe,oevenoinodisregardoofoit,oorois expresslyofoundedoonoreasonsowhichoareowrongoinolaw,otheosaid 2023.11.30 17:25 conclusionocanobeocorrectedobyoaowritoofocertiorari.oInoallothese cases, o the o impugned o conclusion o should o be o so o plainly inconsistent owith o theo relevant o statutoryo provision o that o no difficultyoisoexperiencedobyotheoHighoCourtoinoholdingothatothe saidoerroroofolawoisoapparentoonotheofaceoofotheorecord.oItomay alsoobeothatoinosomeocases,otheoimpugnedoerroroofolawomayonot beoobviousooropatentoonotheofaceoofotheorecordoasosuchoandothe Courtomayoneedoanoargumentotoodiscoverotheosaidoerror;obut thereocanobeonoodoubtothatowhatocanobeocorrectedobyoaowritoof certiorarioisoanoerroroofolawoandotheosaidoerroromust,oonothe whole,obeoofosuchoaocharacteroasowouldosatisfyotheotestothatoitois anoerroroofolawoapparentoonotheofaceoofotheorecord.oIfoa statutoryoprovisionoisoreasonablyocapableoofotwooconstructions andooneoconstructionohasobeenoadoptedobyotheoinferioroCourtoor Tribunal,oitsoconclusionomayonotonecessarilyooroalwaysobeoopen toocorrectionobyoaowritoofocertiorari.oInoouroopinion,oitois neitheropossibleonorodesirableotooattemptoeitherotoodefineooroto describe o adequately o all o cases o of o errors o which o can o be appropriatelyodescribedoasoerrorsoofolawoapparentoonotheoface ofotheorecord.oWhetherooronotoanoimpugnedoerroroisoanoerroroof lawoandoanoerroroofolawowhichoisoapparentoonotheofaceoofothe record,omustoalwaysodependouponotheofactsoandocircumstances ofoeachocasesoandouponotheonatureoandoscopeoofotheolegal provisionowhichoisoallegedotoohaveobeenomisconstruedoor contravened."

¶16Noootheropointohasobeenourged.

¶17Whenotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofothisocaseoandoalsoothe findingsoreturnedobyotheolearnedoIndustrialoTribunaloareoconsideredoinothe lightoofotheolegalopositionoindicatedoabove,oIodoonotofindoanyoillegalityoor infirmityowithotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo12.11.2021o(AnnexureoP-4),owhich mayocalloforoanyointerferenceobyothisoCourt,owhileoexercisingoitsowrit jurisdiction.oRatherotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo12.11.2021o(AnnexureoP-4) isowelloreasoned,obasedouponoproperoappraisaloandoappreciationoofoevidence andocorrectointerpretationoofolaw.oTherefore,otheoinstantowritopetitionoisobereft ofoanyomeritoandotheosameoisoaccordinglyodismissedoinolimine.

¶18Allopendingoapplication/s,oifoany,oshalloalsoostandoclosed.

01.08.2023 (HARSHoBUNGER) Himani/Apurva ooJUDGE Whetherospeaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whetheroreportable : Yes/No