PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus INDERJIT SINGH

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 29-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PUNJAB STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS .. 
v. 
INDERJIT SINGH 
MAY 29, 2007. 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
C 
Termination-Allegation by workman that his services. were illegally 
dispensed with from 30-04-1997 onwards- He Claimed that he had worked 
continuously from 31.03.1993 to 30.04.1997-Labour Court held termination 
of workman was illegal and directed re-instatement-Order upheld by High 
Court-On appeal, held: Contrary to statement made in claim petition, 
workmen in his evidence before Labour Court categorically admitted that he 
D was appointed on 1.4.1996-Also, evidence tendered by workman 
contradictory in terms-Appointment w.e.f 31.3.1993 not established-Order 
of reinstatement set aside. 
Respondent-workman raised industrial dispute alleging that his services 
were illegally dispensed with from 30.04.1997 onwards. He claimed that he 
E had been continuously working from 31.03.1993 to 30.04.1997. Labour Court 
held that Respondent was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service 
alongwith 50% back wages. Appellant-Board filed writ petition before High 
Court which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In the claim petition it is stated that Respondent worked 
continuously under the management from 31.3.1993 to 30.4.1997. But in 
his evidence before the Labour Court, he has categorically admitted that he 
was appointed on 1.4.1996. No detail of the vocational training has been 
G 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. Also 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. At another 
( 
H 
826 
PUNJAB STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARDi-. INDERJIT SINGH [PASA Y AT, J.] 
827 
place the respondent stated that after completion of apprenticeship of two years A 
he was appointed. No material has been brought on record to substantiate 
the claim of apprenticeship. Above being the position orders of the Labour 
Court and the High Court are clearly unsustainable and are set aside. 
[Paras 7, 8 and 9) (828-F, G, ff; 829-A, Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1255 of2007. 
B 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 1 l.07.2005 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 10261 of 2005. 
Harinder Mohan Singh and Kaushal Yadav for the Appellants. 
Delhi Law Chambers for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. l. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing D 
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 E 
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 F 
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 
G 
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 H 
.. 
828 
·,. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 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 an

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