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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5361 of 2005

PETITIONER: H.U.D.A.

RESPONDENT: JAGMAL SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/07/2006

BENCH: Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN,J.

       Heard Mr.Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and  Mr.D.P.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent.         The above appeal is directed against the order passed by the Punjab  and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5947 of 2003.  The Writ  Petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed without assigning any  reasons whatsoever.           The respondent herein was appointed by the appellant as sweeper on  daily wages on 01.05.1992.  According to the appellant, the respondent had  left the service at his own which has been disputed by the learned counsel  for the respondent.  The respondent sent a demand notice after a delay of  four and a half years through the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Panipat to  the appellant asking for reinstatement with continuous service and back  wages. The appellant filed reply to the demand notice before the  Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer, Panipat putting it clearly that the respondent had  not completed 240 days service in any of the three years that he had worked  there.  The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,  Panipat.  The Labour Court passed an award in favour of the respondent  holding that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement to the service with  continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice,  i.e., 11.11.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant invoked the  jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking setting aside of  the order of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court.  The High Court, as  stated earlier, dismissed the Writ Petition.           We have perused the orders passed by the High Court and also of  the Labour Court and the evidence led before the Labour Court by both the  parties.  Our attention has also been drawn to some documents filed in  support of the appellant and the other relevant documents.         The appellant had also produced before the Labour Court the  statement marked as Annexure P-1.  It is seen from the above statement that  the respondent-workman had worked for 204 days (from March, 1994 to  February, 1995) on daily wages.  The Labour Court also considered the  evidence of Rajesh Kumar, Clerk of the appellant that the respondent- workman has worked from 01.01.1994 to February, 1995 in their Division for  204 days.  The Labour Court has further held that the records from  01.07.1994 to 31.07.1994 was not available and, therefore, the management  has failed to produce the record for the month of July, 1994 and if the  working days of July, 1994 was counted then the workman has worked for  235 days and if the gazetted holidays and weekly rest were included then  definitely  the workman has worked for more than 240 days under the  management.           We are unable to appreciate the approach made by the Labour Court  in calculating the statutory period of 240 days in a year.  In our opinion, both  the Labour Court and the High Court have failed to appreciate the fact that  the respondent has failed to complete the statutory period of 240 days in a

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

year to entitle him for claiming any benefits whatsoever.  As already noticed,  evidence has been led to the said fact before the Labour Court but still the  issue of attendance of the respondent has been decided in his favour.  This  apart, the respondent was appointed only as a daily wage earner and not as  a permanent employee of the appellant and hence the respondent cannot  claim any right to the post in question and that no right has accrued to him  to claim any benefits from the appellant.  This fact has been overlooked by  the Labour Court and also by the High Court.  The fact remains that the  respondent has not worked for the statutory period of 240 days which has  been clearly established by the appellant.  It is settled law that the workman  has to prove that he had worked for 240 days.  In the instant case, the  workman has not established that he has served the appellant for the  statutory period of 240 days.           In the result, the order passed by the Labour Court and the non- speaking order passed by the High Court are liable to be set aside.  We do  so accordingly and allow the Civil Appeal filed by the appellant and set aside  the order passed by the Labour Court and the High Court ordering  reinstatement and back wages. No costs.         We also make it clear that the payment, if any, made to the  respondent during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, shall not be  recovered.