The court upheld that the burden of proving continuous service and employee-employer relationship lies with the workman, which was not met, leading to dismissal of the claim based on delay and lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioner (Ram Niwas) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned Award dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bathinda; whereby, the reference has been declined and answered against him.

A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner-workman in service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and full back wages.

2. Briefly, the petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda. In the claim statement, the petitioner-workman had stated that he was working as a Chowkidar with the respondent-department on daily wages since 01.02.1989 to 30.11.1994 and on 01.12.1994, his services were illegally terminated without any reason and without issuing any notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or compensation. Petitioner claims that he had worked for 240 days and at the time of his termination, he was getting Rs. 1080/- p.m. as wages. Petitioner claimed that his services have been terminated in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; accordingly, he prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

3. Apart from taking the legal objections regarding locus standi and cause of action to file the claim petition and also as to whether the petitioner falls within the definition of workman, on merits, it was stated that the petitioner-workman was engaged on 01.11.1989 to 30.03.1991 on daily wage basis i.e. on temporary basis as a Chowkidar with breaks and he was paid for the days for which, he actually worked. It was stated that the petitioner-workman was never engaged after 30.03.1991 and he had not completed 240 days in the last calendar year.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and the parties led their respective evidence. It requires mention that the petitioner-workman, in his evidence, did not step into the witness box and rather examined one Balwinder Singh son of Balwant Singh as WW-1.

5. After considering the case of the respective parties and also the material/evidence placed on the record, the Tribunal below declined the reference of the petitioner-workman, inter alia, observing that the petitioner-workman had failed to prove that he had rendered continuous service (240 days) in the last twelve calendar months from the date of his alleged termination. It was also held that the petitioner-workman did not step into the witness box in support of his claim and the claim was also held to be suffering from delay and latches as the alleged termination was on 01.12.1994, whereas, the demand notice came to be served only on 16.07.2010.

6. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal below has erred in law and fact in dismissing the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal below are against the pleadings and evidence on record and also the settled propositions of law and thus, the same are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal below had ignored the testimony of Balwinder Singh (WW-1), who had worked in the Office of Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.1, PWD (B&R) Rampura Phul, District Bathinda (Punjab) and retired on 30.09.2009 and also that he had specifically deposed that the petitioner-workman was wor