Khyaliram v. Presiding Officer and Ors

o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoATo CHANDIGARHo o oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCWP-16804-2023o(O&M)ooo DateoofoDecision:o04.08.2023o o o KHAYLIRAMo o o o o o o o o o o …Petitionero o Versuso o PRESIDINGoOFFICER,oINDUSTRIALoTRIBUNAL-CUM-o LABOURoCOURT-III,oFARIDABADoANDoOTHERSo o o o o o o o o o oooooooooo…Respondentso o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGERo Presento:o Mr.oDeepakoSonak,oAdvocateo forotheopetitioner.o o HARSHoBUNGER,oJ.o(ORAL)oo

1.o o Petitioner-workmano (Khayliramo s/oLakhiram)o haso filedo thiso petitionounderoArticleso226/227oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia,oforoissuanceoofo writoinotheonatureoofocertiorarioforosettingoasideotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo

31.01.2023o(AnnexureoP-3)opassedobyorespondentoNo.1-PresidingoOfficer,o IndustrialoTribunal-cum-LabouroCourt-III,oFaridabad;owherebyotheoreferenceo ofotheoindustrialodisputeohasobeenodecidedoagainstohim.o Aofurtheroprayerohasobeenomadeoforoissuanceoofoaowritoinotheonatureoofo mandamuso foro directingo theo respondentso too reinstateo theo petitionero witho continuityoofoserviceoandofullobackowages.o

2.o o Briefly,otheopetitioneroraisedoanoindustrialodisputeoquaohisoillegalo terminationo byo servingo ao demando noticeo datedo 16.02.2017,o whichoooooooooooooo wasoosubsequentlyooreferredoootooooIndustrialooTribunal-cum-LabourooCourt-III,oo Faridabado(inoshorto`theoTribunal')oforoadjudication.o

3.o o Inotheoclaimostatement,opetitioneroclaimedothatoheowasoworkingo withorespondent-ForestoDepartmentoasoMazdooroinoReserveoForestoAreaoofo Hodalo sinceo theo year-1998o ando heo continuouslyo workedo upto15.06.2016o wheno suddenlyo hiso serviceso wereo terminatedo ino ano illegalo ando arbitraryo mannerobyoadoptingounfairolabouropractice.oItowasostatedothatoduringotheolongo tenureoofo18oyearsoofohisoservice,otheoStateoofoHaryanaohasoframedoPolicyoofo regularizationoofoemployeesowhoowereohavingoserviceoofomoreothano10oyearso inohis/herocredit,obutotheorespondentsohaveoneveroconsideredotheonameoofotheo petitioner,o whoo remainedo aso dailyo wagero duringo thiso tenure.o Petitionero allegedo exploitationo ando claimedo thato thougho theo respondent-Foresto departmentoiso liableotooregularizeohimo aso heofulfillso theo criteria,ohowevero whenotheopetitioneroaskedofororegularizationoofohisoservicesothenohisoserviceso wereo terminated.o Petitionero statedo thato earliero respondentso wereo payingo wagesotoohimoonoMusteroRollobutolateroon,otheyostoppedopaymentoonoMustero Roll.oPetitioneroclaimedothatohisoterminationoisoillegal,ounjustifiedoandoagainsto principlesooofoonaturaloojusticeoandocontraryotootheoprovisionsoofotheoIndustrialo DisputesoAct,o1947o(foroshort,o'theo1947oAct').oAccordingly,otheopetitionero prayedothatoheomayobeoreinstatedowithofullobackowagesoandocontinuityoofo service.o

4.o o Ono theo othero hand,o theo respondent-Foresto department,o contestedotheoclaimoofotheopetitionerobyofilingoitsoreplyowherein,ointer-alia,o theofollowingostandowasotakeno:-o a)kThereowasonoorelationoofoemployeroandoworkmanobetweeno theorespondent-departmentoandotheopetitioner;oTheoForesto Departmentoadoptedoopriceorateocontractosystemofromotheo yearo2003oandodoesonotoengageolabourodirectly.oTheoworko isoeithero executedo througho villageo Foresto Committeeo oro throughocontractors;o b)kTheooclaimantoo(petitioner)othroughocontractoroorothrougho villageoForestoCommitteeoalongwithootheropersonsoworkedo withobreaksoasounder:o-o o Sr.oNo. Cr.oVr.oNo.o Monthoofo Amounto Paidotoo No.oofo Worko Paido Dayso o 1o 60Hoofo 08/2014o 23700o Khyalio 30o 10/2014o Ramo&o Partyo 2o 72Hoofo 10/2014o 26500o Khyalio 30o 02/2015o Ramo&o Partyo o Totaloofo2014o o o o 60o 1o 62Hoofo 03/2015o 10300o Khyalio 25o 03/2015o Ramo&o Partyo 2o 19Hoofo 05/2015o 7600o Khyalio 30o 06/2015o Ramo&o Partyo 3o 1Hoofoo 06/2015o 7200o Khyalio 20o 08/2015o Ramo&o Partyo o Totaloofo2015o o o o 85o oc)o o o Theo petitioner-workmano waso nevero appointedo aso Mazdooro ino Reserveo Foresto Areao ofo Hodal,o Districto Palwalosinceo1998oandoneveroworkedoupotooJuneo2016,o asoallegedobyopetitioner;o d)o o o Theo petitionero waso nevero appointedo againsto anyooooooooooooooooooo regularopost;o e)ooooTheopetitionerohasonotobeenoengagedoforoallotwelveo precedingo calendaro monthso continuouslyo duringo anyo year;o f)oooooTheopetitionerohasonotoworkedoforo240odaysoinotwelveo precedingo calendaro monthso fromo theo dateo ofo disputeo (Juneo2016)owithotheorespondent-department.o

5.o o Fromo theo pleadingso ofo theo parties,o theo Tribunalo framedo theo followingoissues:o "1.o Whetherootheooservicesooofootheoworkmanowereo o o terminatedoillegally?oIfoso,otoowhatoreliefoheoiso o o entitledoto?oOPWo o2.o Whetherooothereoooexistsooonoooorelationshipoooofo o o employeeoandoemployerobetweenotheoworkmano o o andorespondents?oOPRo o3.ooo Whetherotheopresentoclaimoisobadoonoaccountoofo o o nonoojoiningoofotheoVillageoForestoCommitteeo o o andotheocontractors,owithowhom,otheoworkmano o o hadooworked,ooasooallegedooinoparaono.5oofotheo o o preliminaryoobjectionsoofotheowrittenostatement?o o o OPRo o4.ooooo Relief."o

6.o o Inoorderotooproveohisocase/claim,otheopetitioner/workman-Khyalio Ram,o examinedo himselfo aso WW1o ando alsoo examinedo oneo Vikramo (summonedowitness)oasoWW2oandoreliedouponotheofollowingodocumentsoino hisodocumentaryoevidenceo:-o Sr.o Exhibito Documento No.o 1o W1o CopyoofoorderoofoHon'bleoPunjabo&o Haryanao Higho Courto datedo

30.09.2014.o 2o W2o Copyo ofo officeo ordero No.62o datedo

31.03.2015o ofo Divisionalo Foresto Officer,oPalwal.o 3o W3o CopyoofofailureoreportoO/ooAssistanto LabouroCommissioner,oPalwal.o 4o W4o Copieso ofo statementso ofo witnesseso andorecordoproducedobeforeoLabouro CourtoinocaseotitledoasoPrempaloVs.o D.F.O.oOthers.o 5o W5o Legalonoticeodatedo20.11.2012.o 6o WW2/1o Copyoofoletterodatedo06.07.2000oforo implementationo ofo contracto systemo inoForestoDepartment,oHaryana.o 7o WW2/2o Copyo ofo F.I.R.o datedo 05.01.2017o lodgedobyoDivisionaloForestoOfficer.o 8o WW2/3o Copyo ofo certificateo issuedo byo DivisionaloForestoOfficer,oPalwal.o o o Thereafter,o theo petitioner-Workmano closedo hiso evidenceo ono

20.01.2022.o

7.o o Ono theo othero hand,o theo respondentso haveo examinedo oneo Amardeep,oForestoRanger,oForestoDepartment,oPalwaloasoRW1oandohaveoalsoo adducedofollowingodocumentsoinotheirodocumentaryoevidenceo:-o Sr.oNo.o Exhibit/so Documento 1o R1o Listoofodocumentso(Annexure-1)o 2o R2o&oR3o Copieso ofo attendanceo recordo ofo Khyaliramo alongo witho copieso ofo cashobook.o 3o R4o Certificateo issuedo byo K.C.o Meena,o I.F.S.o Chairman,o Foresto Department,o Palwalo ato Gurgaono alongo witho listo ofo Villageo Foresto Committees.o 4o R5o Copyoofoletterodatedo06.07.2000oforo implementationo ofo contracto systemo inoForestoDepartment,oHaryana.o 5o R6o Lettero No.4295-Ft-5-2003/23462o datedo22.10.2003.o o o Thereafter,otheorespondentsoevidenceowasoclosedoono11.10.2022.o

8.o o Videoimpugnedoawardodatedo31.01.2023o(AnnexureoP-3)opassedo byotheoTribunal;otheoreferenceoofotheoindustrialodisputeohasobeenodecidedo againstotheopetitioner-workman.o

9.o o Beingoaggrievedoagainstotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo31.01.2023o (AnnexureoP-3)oibid,otheopetitionerohasofiledotheoinstantowritopetition.o

10.o o Learnedocounseloforotheopetitionerowhileoreiteratingotheostandoofo theopetitionero beforeo theo Labouro Court,osubmittedo thatotheopetitionero waso appointedo ono dailyo wageo basiso ino theo respondent-Foresto departmento aso Labourero (Mazdoor)o ino theo yearo 1998o ando heo continuouslyo workedo tillo

15.06.2016,owhenosuddenlyohisoservicesowereoterminatedoinoanoillegaloandoAPURVA arbitraryo mannero withouto followingotheomandatoryo provisionso ofo theo Act,o 1947.o Ito iso submittedo thato theo petitionero haso workedo continuouslyo ino theo departmentofromotheodateoofohisoinitialoappointmentoandoheowasoappointedo directlyoandoalwaysoworkedounderotheodirectocontroloandosupervisionoofotheo respondent-departmentoandopaymentotootheopetitionerowasoalwaysomadeobyo respondent-department.oItoisonextosubmittedothatotheopetitioneroneveroworkedo undero anyo contractoro oro Villageo Foresto Committee.o Ito iso statedo thato theo petitioneroworkedoforomoreothano240odaysoinotheolasto12omonthsoprecedingohiso terminationoandonooproperoattendanceoregister/MusteroRollowasomaintainedo byo respondent-departmento noro anyo sucho recordo waso producedo byo theo respondent-department.oItoisocontendedothatoinotheoabsenceoofoanyocontracto betweeno theo contractor/Villageo Foresto Committeeo ando respondent-department,otheoworkmanoisoanoemployeeoofodepartment.oItoisoalsoocontendedo thato ano adverseo inferenceo shouldo haveo beeno drawno againsto respondent-departmentoforonotoproducingorecord.oAccordingly,ocounseloforotheopetitionero praysothatotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo31.01.2023o(AnnexureoP-3)opassedobyo theoTribunal,omayobeosetoasideoandonecessaryodirectionsomayobeoissuedoforo reinstatementoofopetitionerowithocontinuityoofoserviceoandofullobackowages.o

11.o o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioneroandoperusedotheo paper-bookowithohisoableoassistance.oo

12.o o Itowouldobeoappositeotooreferotooaofewojudicialopronouncements,o asowouldobeogermaneotootheoissueoinohand.o

13.o o Whileo consideringo ano issueo ofo existenceo ofo relationshipo ofo employeroandoemployeeobetweenotheoparties,oinoWorkmenoofoNilgirioCoop.o Mkt.o Societyo Ltd.o v.o Stateo ofo Tamilo Naduo &o Ors.,o (2004)o 3o SCCo 514,o Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoheldoasounder:-o

"47. It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him.

¶48In N.C. John v. Secretary Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers' Union and Others, 1973 LIC 398, the Kerala High Court held : "The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer-employee relationship an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have proved employer-employee relationship."

¶49In Swapan Das Gupta and Others. v. The First Labour Court of West Bengal and Others, 1975 LIC 202, it has been held : "Where a person asserts that he was a workmen of the Company, and it is denied by the company, it is for him to prove the fact. It is not for the Company to prove that he was not an employee of the Company but of some other person."

¶50The question whether the relationship between the parties is one of the employer and employee is a pure question of fact and ordinarily the High Court while exercising its power of judicial review shall not interfere therewith unless the finding is manifestly or obviously erroneous or perverse…"

In Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Ramcharan 2023(1) SCC 463, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "4.5 Thus, as observed and held by this Court, neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other High Court, Chandigarh

provision in the Act, expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or any other work in any establishment and consequently, the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned. It has further been observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that on issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in case of an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits thereunder.

4.6 In the present case, neither any notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act has been issued prohibiting the contract labour, nor there are allegations and/or even findings that the contract is sham and bogus and/or camouflage. xxx

xxx

xxx

4.8 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand and in the absence of any notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and in the absence of any allegations and/or findings that the contract was High Court, Chandigarh

sham and camouflage, both the Industrial Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a serious error in reinstating the contesting respondents and directing the appellant - principal employer to absorb them as their employees. The parties shall be governed by the CLRA Act and relief, if any, could have been granted under the provisions of the CLRA Act and not under the MPIR Act.

14.

Further, while considering an issue as to whether the workman had completed 240 days of work under the management in terms of section 25B, so as to attract provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, 2005(8) SCC 750, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "9. To attract the provisions of Section 25F, one of the conditions required is that the workman is employed in any industry for a continuous period which would not be not less than one year. Section 25B of the Act defines continuous service for the purposes of Chapter V-A "Lay-off and Retrenchment". The purport of this Section is that if a workman has put in an uninterrupted service of the establishment, including the service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, authorised leave, an accident, a strike which is not illegal, a lock-out or cessation of work, that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman, shall be said to be a continuous service, for that period. Thus the workman shall be said to be in continuous service for one year i.e., 12 months irrespective of the number of days he has actually worked with interrupted service, permissible under Section 25B. However, the workmen must have been in service during the period, i.e., not only on the date when he High Court, Chandigarh

actually worked but also on the days he could not work under the circumstances set out in sub-section

(1). The workman must be in the employment of the employer concerned on the days he has actually worked but also on the days on which he has not worked. The import of sub-section (1) of Section 25B is that the workman should be in the employment of the employer for the continuous, uninterrupted period for one year except the period the absence is permissible as mentioned hereinabove. Sub-section

(2) of Section 25B introduces the fiction to the effect that even if the workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (i) of Section 25B for the period of one year or six months he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section

(2). By the legal fiction of sub-section 2(a) (i), the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service for one year if he is employed underground in a mine for 190 days or 240 days in any other case. Provisions of the Section postulate that if the workman has put in at least 240 days with his employer, immediately prior to the date of retrenchment, he shall be deemed to have served with the employer for a period of one year to get the benefit of Section 25F.

¶10For the purposes of calculation of number of days worked by the employee, by fiction his days of absence from work have been included if the workman has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by Standing Orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (20 of 1946), or under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, or in any other law applicable to the High Court, Chandigarh

industrial establishment; (ii) has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous year; (iii) has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment ; and (iv) has been on maternity leave, in case the employee is a female, however, that the total number of such maternity leave does not exceed 12 weeks. xxx

xxx

xxx

¶19In the light of the aforesaid, it was necessary for the workman to produce the relevant material to prove that he has actually worked with the employer for not less than 240 days during the period twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination. What we find is that apart from the oral evidence the workman has not produced any evidence to prove the fact that he has worked for 240 days. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in that regard was produced; no co-worker was examined; muster roll produced by the employer has not been contradicted. It is improbable that workman who claimed to have worked with the appellant for such a long period would not possess any documentary evidence to prove nature of his engagement and the period of work he had undertaken with his employer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the workman has failed to discharge his burden that he was in employment for 240 days during the preceding 12 months of the date of termination of his service. The Courts below have wrongly drawn an adverse inference for non production of the record of the workman for ten years. The scope of enquiry before the Labour Court was confined to only 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide the question of continuation High Court, Chandigarh of service for the purpose of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman has never contended that he was regularly employed in the Panchayat for one year to claim the uninterrupted period of service as required under Section 25B(1) of the Act. In the fact and situation and in the light of the law on the subject, we find that the workman-respondent is not entitled for the protection or compliance of Section 25F of the Act before his service was terminated by the employer. As regards non-compliance of Sections 25G and 25H suffice is to say that witness Vinod Mishra examined by the appellant has stated that no seniority list was maintained by the department of daily wagers. In the absence of regular employment of the workman, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so called seniority no relief could be given to him for non-compliance of provisions of the Act. The Courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the Court. In order to entitle the Court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the Court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved…"o %:&o o omin#otoocaseoinohand.otheo,ri)unalo/ideotheoimpu#nedoawardo datedo$%&'%&2'2$o(Anne(ureoP-$)ohasoreturnedotheofollowin#ofindin#s@-o 3-:#o 7noappreciationoofotheoe%idenceoledobyobothotheo partiesoandoafterohearin"otheori%alocontentionsoofolearnedo *)soforotheoparties,otheopositionowhichoemer"esoisothatoitoiso theocaseoofoclaimantothatoheowasoappointedoaso3Mazdoor;o byo theo respondentso ino theo Reserveo Foresto Areao ofHodalPalwalo ino yearo 1998o ando heo hado workedo thcontinuouslyotillo15 oJuneo2016oandothereafterohisoserviceso wereoterminatedobyorespondentsoinoanoillegaloandoarbitraryo manner.oOnotheootherohand,oaccordingotootheorespondents,o claimantowasoneveroengagedodirectlyobyotheorespondents.o Heo hado nevero beeno appointedo ono anyo sanctionedo post.o Ratheroheohadoworkedowithotheorespondentsoeitherothrougho contractorso oro througho Villageo Foresto Committees.o Respondentso alsoo claimedo thato theo claimanto hado noto workedo witho theo respondentso foro ao periodo ofo 240o dayso precedingo theo 12o calendaro monthso fromo hiso allegedo termination.o o o Itoisowellosettledolawothatotheoonusoofoprovingotheo relationshipo ofo employeeo ando employero ando continuouso workingo ofo 240o dayso duringo 12o calendaro monthso immediatelyo precedingotheodateoofo illegalo terminationoofo service,oliesouponotheoworkman.o 16otoo21.o xxxo o xxxo o xxxo

22.o Inoviewoofotheoaboveodiscussedolegaloposition,onowo ito iso too beo seeno whethero theo claimanto haso succeededo too proveotheorelationshipoofoemployeeoandoemployerobetweeno himo&otheorespondentsoandowhetheroheohadoworkedowitho respondentsoforo240odaysoinoprecedingo12ocalenderomonthso fromotheoallegedodateoofoterminationoofohisoserviceobyotheo respondents.oThisoCourtofindsothatoapartofromohisoownooralo testimonyoasoWW1,oclaimantohasonotoproducedoanyoothero oraloorodocumentaryoevidenceowhichocouldoproveotheofacto thatoheowasoeveroengagedobyotheorespondentsoasoaomustero rollodailyolaboureroorootherwiseoworkedowithorespondentso thonodailyowagesosinceoyearo1998otillo15 oJuneo2016oorothato heohadoworkedocontinuouslyoforoaoperiodoofo240odaysoinoao yearo precedingo dateo ofo hiso allegedo terminationo byo theo respondents.o Noo doubto thato claimanto haso alsoo examinedo oneootherowitnessoVikramoS/ooSatbiroSingh,ohoweveroheoisoao formalowitnessofromotheoofficeoofoD.F.O.oPalwalowhoohado producedo theo summonedo record.o Noo appointmento letter,o wageso slipo oro recordo ofo engagemento ofo claimanto byo theo ForestoDepartmentohasobeenoproducedoonorecordobyotheo claimant.oItoisoimprobableothatoclaimantowhoohasoclaimedo thatoheohadoworkedowithotheorespondentsoforosuchoaolongo periodo wouldo noto possesso anyo documentaryo proofo ofo hiso engagementoandoperiodoofoworkoheohadoundertakenowithohiso employer.oEvenonooco-workerohasobeenoexaminedobyotheo claimantoinosupportoofohisoclaim.oStatementoofoclaimantoino theoshapeoofoaffidavitoEx.WW1/Aocannotobeoheldosufficiento evidenceo too comeo too theo conclusiono thato claimanto waso engagedobyotheorespondentsoinotheoyearo1998oorothatoheohado thworkedo continuouslyo witho theo respondentso tillo 15 o Juneo 2016.o Workmano duringo hiso cross-examinationo admittedo thatoheoisonotoissuedoanyoidentityocardooroappointmentolettero issuedobyotheodepartmento(Forest).oHeofurtherostatedothato heo waso noto appointedo ono anyo posto byo theo Foresto Department.o However,o heo voluntarilyo statedothato heo hado workedoasoao"Mazdoor".oHeofurtheroadmittedothatoheohaso notoworkedoonoanyosanctionedopostoinotheoDepartment.o o o Onotheootherohandorespondentsohaveoprovedodetailso ofoattendanceorecordoofoclaimantofromoyearo2014-15oando 2015-16o(preparedoasoperocashobook)oalongowithocopiesoofo casho booko aso EX.R2o &o EX.R3.o Ao perusalo ofo theo sameo revealsothatopresentoclaimantohadoworkedowithorespondentso duringoperiodoAugusto2014otooJuneo2015oeitherothrougho contractorsoorothroughoVillageoForestoCommittees.oHeohado neveroworkedocontinuouslyoforo240odaysoinoanyoyear.oTheo totalonumberoofoworkingodaysoofoworkmanoinolastoprecedingo 12omonthsofromotheoallegedodateoofoterminationoareoNil.o WW2oVikramocategoricallyostatedothatoPalwalohadobecomeo Districto ino yearo 2009o &o heo haso broughto recordo ofo contractorofromoyearo2009oonwards.oHeoalsoostatedothato theorecordopriorotooyearo2002owasostolenofromotheirooffice.o Inothisoregard,oDepartmentohadolodgedoFIRoNo.08odatedo

05.01.2017o ino Policeo Stationo Palwal.o Ito iso pertinento too mentiono thato claimanto hado filedo demando noticeo ono

16.02.2017o whereaso FIRo waso lodgedo ono 05.01.2017o i.e.o priorotootheofilingoofodemandonoticeobyotheoclaimant.o o o Itohasobeenoprovedoonorecordofromotheoevidenceoledo byo theo respondentso thato aftero yearo 2003o aso pero theo directionso ofo Haryanao Government,o ao pieceo rateo ofo contracto systemo waso adoptedo byo theo Foresto Departmento ando theo worko waso beingo executedo eithero througho contractorso oro througho Villageo Foresto Committees.o Necessaryo entrieso wereo beingo madeo byo theo Foresto Departmentoinotheocashobookoafteromakingopaymentoasopero theo detailso submittedo ofo theo contractors/Villageo Foresto Committees.oThereoisonothingoonorecordotoosuggestothatotheo attendanceo recordo ofo claimanto producedo byo theo respondentso iso falseo ando fabricated.o Hence,o thereo iso noo reasonotoodisbelieveotheosame.o

23.o Inoviewoofomyoaboveodetailedodiscussion,othisoCourto considersothatotheoevidenceoledobyotheoworkmanoisonotoatoallo sufficientotooproveohisocase/claim.oWorkmanohasofailedotoo produceoanyocogentoandosatisfactoryoevidenceowhichocouldo proveo thato heo waso engagedo byo theo respondentso aso dailyo wageolaboureroasoperomusterorollsosystemoinoyearo1998oandooo thworkedotillo15 oJuneo2016.oClaimantohasofailedotooproveo thato thereo waso relationshipo ofo employeeo ando employero betweenotheoclaimantoandorespondents.oHeohasoalsoofailedo tooproveothatoheohadoworkedocontinuouslyoforoaoperiodoofo 240odaysoinotwelveocalendaromonthsoprecedingotheodateoofo hisoallegedoterminationobyotheorespondents.oThus,oheoisonoto entitledotootheoprotectionoofoSectiono25-FoofotheoI.D.oAct.o Accordingly,o issueo No.1o iso decidedo againsto theo claimanto andoinofavourooforespondentsoandoissueono.2oisodecidedoino favourooforespondentsoandoagainstotheoclaimant."oo %6&o o A perusal of the above extracted findings of Tribunal would make it evident that the petitioner-workman failed to discharge the onus placed upon him of proving employee-employer relationship nor it was proved that the petitioner-workman had completed 240 days work under the Management in terms of section 25B of 1947 Act, so as to attract the provisions of section 25F of the 1947 Act. No appointment letter or proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record of engagement by Forest Department or any order in that regard was produced; even no co-worker has been examined by petitioner-workman in support of his claim. Rather, the petitioner-workman had admitted in his cross-examination that neither any identity card nor any appointment letter was issued by Forest Department. Thus, once the petitioner-workman had failed to prove employee-employer relationship and / or that he had completed 240 days work under the Management, no relief could have been granted to him.o %7&o o Asore#ardsotheopleaoofotheopetitionerothatoad/erseoinferenceo)eo drawnoa#ainstorespondent-departmentoforonotoproducin#o=ustero6olls"oitoiso o)ser/edothatoapartofromotheo)areopleaoofonon-productionoofomusterorollo)yo respondent-department.othereoisonoopleaoofotheopetitionerothatorespondent-departmentohasosuppressedotheorele/antorecord&o!notheoa)senceoofosuchopleaoofo suppression"o noo ad/erseo inferenceo cano )eo drawno a#ainsto respondent-department&o !no thiso re#ard"o referenceo cano )eo madeo too theo 4ud#mento ofo 7on3)leo Ape(o ourto ino .M.o !e""attio #.o $heo Asst.o Executi#eo En%ineer&o '(()*+,oS.C.$.o-.)"owhereinoitohaso)eenoheldoasounder@o 3-:#oGoTheoabo%eodecisionsohowe%eromakeoitoclearothato mereo affida%itso oro self-ser%in"o statementso madeo byo theo claimant?workmano willo noto sufficeo ino theo mattero ofo dischar"eoofotheoburdenoplacedobyolawoonotheoworkmanotoo pro%eothatoheohadoworkedoforo22 odaysoinoao"i%enoyear#oTheo abo%eo 8ud"mentso furthero layo downo thato mereo non-productiono ofo mustero rollso pero seo withouto anyo pleao ofo suppressiono byo theo claimanto workmano willo noto beo theo "roundo foro theo tribunalo too drawo ano ad%erseo inferenceo a"ainstotheomana"ement#o@astly,otheoabo%eo8ud"mentsolayo downo theo basico principle,o namely,o thato theo +i"ho &ourto undero*rticleo221oofotheo&onstitutionowillonotointerfereowitho theo concurrento findin"so ofo facto recordedo byo theo labouro courtounlessotheyoareoper%erse#oThisoe$erciseowillodependo uponofactsoofoeachocaseG;o %9&o o It is trite that this court, in such matters, exercises certiorari jurisdiction, the peripheries of which stand authoritatively delineated in Syed Yakoob v K. S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477 : "7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard, to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact

reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.

¶8It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of High Court, Chandigarh the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconducted or contravened."o o o %8&o o Dponoconsiderin#otheofactsoandocircumstancesoofothisocaseoando alsootheofindin#soreturnedo)yotheolearnedo!ndustrialo,ri)unaloinotheoli#htoofo theole#alopositionoindicatedoa)o/e"o!odoonotofindoanyoille#alityooroinfirmityo withotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo31.01.2023o(AnnexureoP-3),owhichomayocallo foro anyo interferenceo byo thiso Court,o whileo exercisingo itso writo jurisdiction.o Accordingly,otheoinstantowritopetitionoisodismissedoinolimine.o

20.o o Noootheropointohasobeenourged.o

21.o o Allopendingoapplication/s,oifoany,oshalloalsoostandoclosed.o o thAugusto4 ,o2023o o o o o o (HARSHoBUNGER)o Gurpreet/Apurva/Himanioo o o o o JUDGEo Whetherospeaking/reasoned:o o Yes/Noo Whetheroreportable:o o o Yes/No