HUDA versus JAGMAL SINGH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 13-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
H.U.D.A. 
v. 
JAGMAL SINGH 
B 
JULY 13, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
C 
labour law: 
Daily wager-Claim for reinstatement with back wages-Computation 
of 240 working days-Evidence showing that workman had worked for 204 
days only-Held, both Labour Court and High Court failed to appreciate the 
D fact that workman did not complete statutory period of 240 days in a year 
to entitle him for claiming the benefits. 
Respondent was appointed by appellant as a sweeper on daily wages. He 
left the job and after four and a half years sent a demand notice through 
Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer asking the appellant to reinstate him with 
E continuous service and back wages. The appellant replied that the respondent 
did not complete 240 days of service in any of the three years he had worked 
there. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court 
which allowed the claim of the respondent. Employer's writ petition was 
dismissed by High Court. Aggrieved, the employee filed the present appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The appellant had produced before the Labour Court the 
statement showing that the respondent-workman had worked for 204 days 
(from March, 1994 to February, 1995) on daily wages. The Labour Court also 
considered the evidence of the Clerk of the appellant that the respondent-
G workman worked from 1.1.1994 to February 1995 for 204 days. The Labour 
Court erred in calculating the statutory period of 240 days in a year. Both 
the Labour Court and the High Court have failed to appreciate the fact that 
the respondent has failed to complete the statutory period of240 days in a 
year to entitle him for claiming any benefits whatsoever. It is settled law that 
H the workman has to prove that he had worked for 240 days. In the instant 
case, the workman has not established that he has served the appellant for 
the statutory period oi240 days. [538-8-C; E; G-HJ 
536 
-
H.U.D.A. V. JAGMAL SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
537 
1.2. Besides, the respondent was appointed only as a daily wage earner A 
and hence he cannot claim any right to the post in question. No right has 
accrued to him to claim any benefit from the appellant. This fact has been 
overlooked by the Labour Court and also by the High Court. (538-F-Gl 
1.3. The order passed by the Labour Court and the non-speaking order 
passed by the High Court are set aside. However, the payment, if any made to B 
the respondent during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, shall not 
be recovered. (539-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5361 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.2004 of the High Court of C 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in C.W.P. No. 5947/2003. 
Sanjay Jain and Mukesh Kumar for the Appellant. 
D.P. Chaturvedi and S.N. Bhat for the Respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Heard Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for 
the appellant and Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent. 
D 
The above appeal is directed against the order passed by the Punjab E 
and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5947 of 2003. The Writ 
Petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed without assigning any 
reasons whatsoever. 
The respondent herein was appointed by the appellant as sweeper on 
daily wages on 01.05.1992. According to the appellant, the respondent had F 
left the service at his own which has been disputed by the learned counsel 
for the respondent. The respondent sent a demand notice after a delay of four 
and a half years through the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Panipat to the 
appellant asking for reinstatement with continuous service and back wages. 
The appellant filed reply to the demand notice before the Labour-cum- G 
Conciliation Officer, Panipat putting it clearly that the respondent had not 
completed 240 days service in any of the three years that he had worked 
there. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 
Panipat. The Labour Court passed an award in favour of the respondent 
holding that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement to the service with 
continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e., H 
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 11.11.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction 
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking setting aside of the order 
of the Ind

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.