THE CHIEF SOIL CONSERVATOR PUNJAB AND ORS. versus GURMAIL SINGH

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S. C.R. 564 
f 
A 
THE CHIEF SOIL CONSERVATOR PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
GURMAIL SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 3473 of 2009) 
B 
MAY 8, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
c 
Reinstatement of terminated workman - Onus to prove 
completion of 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date 
of termination - Held: Is on the workman - Labour Court and 
High Court erred in holding that the onus was on employer 
D and in reinstating the workman with 50% of back wages for 
want of evidence - Courts below also did not discuss as to 
why employer be not treated as industry - Considering the 
passage of time, and peculiar facts of the case, employer is 
directed to pay Rs. 60, 000 to workmen in full and final 
E 
settlement of his claim - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of 
Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) 8 sec 161 relied on. 
.. 
Case Law Reference: 
F 
(2004) s sec 161 
relied on 
Para 5 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3473 of 2009. 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2006 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 639 of 
• 
2005. 
"' 
A.K. Mehta and Ajay Pal for the Appellant. 
H 
564 
CHIEF SOIL CONSERVATOR PUNJAB AND ORS. v. 565 
GURMAIL SINGH 
) 
Jitendra Sharma, B.K. Pal and P.N. Jha for the 
A 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the 
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 
of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). 
Prayer in the writ petition was to quash the award dated c 
23.9.2004 under which the respondent no.1 was directed to be 
reinstated with continuity of service with 50% back wages 
within stipulated time. The award was made by the Presiding 
Officer, Patiala. The matter was before the Labour Court on the 
basis of a complaint made by respondent no.1. 
D 
The brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1-
workman was appointed as Buldozer Operator with the 
petitioner-management on 1.11.1990. Since his appointment 
was on 89 days basis, the same was extended from time to 
E 
time till 5.7.1996. Thereafter, his services were not extended. 
The workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that 
his services were terminated by the management on 15. 7 .1996 
without any notice, charge sheet, enquiry or compensation and 
--
that the juniors to him are still in service of the management 
and new persons were also appointed by the management after 
F 
terminating his services. The government referred the dispute 
to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') and the 
Labour Court on 23.9.2004 made the award, which was 
challenged before the High Court. 
G 
... 
The stand of the petitioner-management is that respondent 
no.1-workman was engaged as Buldozer Operator on 89 days 
basis and in that stop-gap arrangement he had worked from 
1.11.1990 till 15. 7.1996 but intermittently. He was never 
H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A employed continuously, therefore, did not work for 240 days in 
the preceding 12 calendar months. Thus, denial of further 
extension of his service does not amount to retrenchment, 
therefore, has been wrongly awarded reinstatement with back 
wages. The Labour Court has not appreciated the fact that 
B since the petitioner department is not an "Industry", the services 
of respondent no.1 were not governed by the afore-stated Act. 
The Labour Court held that Section 2(o) of the Act has no 
application to the facts of the case. In any event, the workman 
had completed 240 days of work in several years. The 
C appellants took the stand that respondent no.1 have not 
completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. He never 
worked continuously. The employer was not an industry. The 
Labour Court held that there was no compliance with 
requirement of Section 25F of the Act. The question whether 
D department is an industry has to be decide against the 
management for want of evidence. The onus was on the 
department to prove that the workman worked only 180 days 
and not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar 
months from the date of alleged termination. Since no records 
E were produced by the department the claim has to be accepted. 
In the writ petiti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.