Holding

The Court held that the workman's claim of continuous service was unsupported and set aside the reinstatement and back‑wage orders, allowing the appeal.

Summary

The workman, Inderjit Singh, claimed that he had been continuously employed as a carpenter by the Punjab State Electricity Board from 31 March 1993 until his termination on 30 April 1997 and sought reinstatement with back wages. The Labour Court held in his favour, directing reinstatement and 50% back wages, a decision upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Board contended that the workman had admitted he was only appointed on 1 April 1996 and that his evidence regarding apprenticeship and training was contradictory and unsupported. The Supreme Court examined the inconsistencies, noting the absence of any documentary proof of apprenticeship and the workman's own admission of the later appointment date. Finding the workman's claim of continuous service unproved, the Court set aside the orders of the Labour Court and High Court and allowed the appeal, without ordering costs.

Issues considered

Whether the workman's allegation of continuous service from 31‑03‑1993 to 30‑04‑1997 is substantiated by evidence.
Whether the termination of his services was illegal, warranting reinstatement and back wages.
Whether the evidence of apprenticeship and vocational training establishes the claimed period of service.

Subjects

labour lawtermination of servicereinstatementindustrial disputeapprenticeshipback wagesevidence contradictionemployment continuity

Judgment

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 STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDi-. INDERJIT SINGH [PASA YAT, 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.
c
Delhi Law Chambers for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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:
G

He was working with the management in the maintenance sub-division
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 any basis. It was
further submitted that Daulat Ram was not officially competent to giv~ any
certificate as claimed to have been issued by him. The High Court accepted
B the claim of the workman that he was continuously working from 31.3 .1993
to 30.4.1997. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court has Jost sight of the fact that the workman has not
C adduced any evidence to establish that he was appointed w.e.f. 31.3.1993. On
the contrary, he accepted that he received wages for the period from 1.4.1996
to 30.4.1997 after putting the signatures on the muster roll. He has categorically
stated that he was appointed as a Carpenter by the respondent-management
on 1.4.1996. ~tis also stated that muster rolls were produced for the entire
period which clearly indicated that he had not worked for the period he /
D claimed to have worked.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
the statement of the witness i.e. the claimant and the materials on record
clearly substantiate claim of the respondent.

E 7. At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of the averments
made by the claimant. In the claim petition it is stated that he worked
continuously under the management from 31.3.1993 to 30.4.1.997. But in his
evidence before the Labour Court, he has stated as follows:

"I got vocational training for the period 31.3. I 993 to 30.4.1995. I was

.. F appointed as carpenter by the respondent management on 1.4.1996. I
used to get my wages after putting my signature on the revenue
stamp affixed on the muster roll. I have received my wages for the
period 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1997. After completion my apprenticeship of
two years, I was appointed as carpenter on 1.4.1996 by the SDO. No
written appointment Jetter was issued as I was employed on daily
G
wage basis."

8. Thus there is categorical admission that he was appointed on 1.4.1996.
No detail of the vocational training has been tendered in evidence. It was
also not stated in the claim petition or in evidence as to who sent the·
H respondent for training. There is not even reference to the so called vocational
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDv. INDERJIT SINGH[PASA YAT,J.) 829
training in the claim petition. It is also to be noticed that the evidence A
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.
Nothing has been stated for the period from 1.5.1995 to 31.3.1996. At another
place the respondent stated that after completion of apprenticeship of two
years he was appointed. No material has been brought on record tCI B
substantiate the claim of apprenticeship.

9. Above being the position, orders of the Labour Court and the High
Court are clearly unsustainable and are set aside. The appeal is allowed
without any order as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeal allowed. C

.·,