http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1255 of 2007

PETITIONER: Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Inderjit Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/05/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

                1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  dismissing 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 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 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:         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 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 give any certificate as claimed  to have been issued by him. The High Court accepted 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 lost sight of the  fact that the workman has not adduced any evidence to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.   It is also stated that muster rolls were produced for the entire  period which clearly indicated that he had not worked for the  period he 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.   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 30.4.1997.  But in his evidence before the  Labour Court, he has stated as follows: "I got vocational training for the period  31.3.1993 to 30.4.1995.  I was 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 letter was issued  as I was employed on daily 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 respondent for  training. There is not even reference to the so called vocational  training in the claim petition. It is also to be noticed that 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.  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 to 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.