Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2534
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Sukhwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CM-4517-LPA-2019 AND CM-4518-LPA-2019 IN/AND LPA-1
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate; For the Appellant
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The relevant principles concerning employment, termination, and evidence of continuous service are discussed. The court emphasized the need for credible documentation to substantiate employment claims, particularly in light of contradictions in claims made by the appellant. (Para 6, 8)
(B) Workers’ Rights - The court reiterated that a self-serving affidavit, without further corroboration, is insufficient to establish a claim of continuous employment. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in refiling an appeal regarding dismissal of his claim for reinstatement after alleging an unlawful termination on December 31, 2007, despite previous termination acknowledged by earlier awards. (Paras 2, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not substantiate the appellant's claims of continued service beyond 1996, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: The key issues addressed were the validity of evidence supporting the appellant's claim of employment after 1996, and whether the earlier awards should be disregarded. (Paras 4, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the onus rests on the claimant to produce credible evidence of employment. In the absence of sufficient proof, particularly concerning prior awards, no merit was found to interfere with the single judge's decision. (Para 9)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral).
CM-4517-LPA-2019
By this application, the applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 53 days in re-filing the appeal.
In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of counsel himself, the application is allowed and the delay of 53 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
CM-4518-LPA-2019
By this application, the applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal.
In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant, the application is allowed and the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
LPA-1982-2019
The consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 15.05.2019, passed in CWP- 13668-2018, titled Sukhwinder Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the Award dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the reference as such of the appellant-workman was upheld.
2. Learned Single Judge noticed that on an earlier occasion when the appellant-workman had filed a case before the Labour Court, the same was decided in favour of the department and the workman had never challenged the said Award dated 11.08.2006, arising out of reference No. 219 of 2001. It is noticed that the dispute now in question was raised by serving a fresh demand notice dated 07.08.2008 and from the record which had been produced by the management, the name of the workman did not find mention except for the period from February 1996 to May 1996 which was subject matter of the earlier termination and which Award had never been challenged by the workman. Resultantly, a finding was recorded that after his termination on 09.07.1996, having been upheld in the Award, there is no evidence having been led by appellant to show that the workman had been appointed thereafter or for that matter having continued up till 31.12.2007 as claimed and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there was an affidavit of such a co-worker on record to show that the appellant had worked after 1996 also and his termination was on 31.12.2007.
4. We are of the considered opinion that the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant-workman is not sustainable only on account of a self serving affidavit of a co-workman. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the claim was raised on account of the fact that the workman had been transferred on 29.03.1996 from Malakpur to Bhimpur and thereafter, on 09.07.1996 to Aminpur and that he had been working w.e.f. 21.11.1995 and was getting salary @ of Rs.4,600/- per month and his services were terminated on 31.12.2007 without any notice. At the time of his termination, he was already getting salary of Rs.10,300/- per month. The demand notice was apparently raised on 07.08.2008, i.e. after 08 months of his termination. The defence, as such, of the respondent-State was that he had worked at Malakpur Sub-Division, UBDC, from 27.11.1995 to 23.02.1996 for 89 days @ of Rs.2,122/- per month and his services were terminated after a period of 89 days on 23.02.1996. He had filed a court case in the Labour Court which was decided in favour of the department and it was denied that there is any transfer order as claimed.
5. It was specifically pleaded that the salary of all the officials was being paid through banks and all accounts were opened in the Bank of India, Gurdaspur and the State Bank of India. It is further stated that if the workman worked in Tibri Sub-Division, he should have produced the account number/pass-book/salary statement of these banks from 02/2005 to 31.12.2007. It is also a matter of record that RW-2 Kashmir Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer, UBDC Sub-Division, Tibri, had produced the c
