The reinstatement was directed to be done on the workman reporting for duty.
On the failure of companyciliation 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 .
31.3.1993.
The workman examined himself as a witness.
I used to get my wages after putting my signature on the revenue stamp affixed on the muster roll.
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 companytinuity of service and also was entitled to receive 50 of the back wages.
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.
It is also to be numbericed that the evidence tendered by the respondent was companytradictory in terms.
After companypletion my apprenticeship of two years, I was appointed as carpenter on 1.4.1996 by the SDO.
The work was assigned to him by Junior Engineer Daulat Ram.
The claim that the workman was working w.e.f.
His duty was at the residential and other buildings of the management.
It was further submitted that Daulat Ram was number officially companypetent to give any certificate as claimed to have been issued by him.
It was further directed that if the amount is number paid to the respondent workman, he was entitled to interest on the said amount.
31.3.1993 to 30.4.1997 companytinuously was without any basis.
I have received my wages for the period 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1997.
The said Junior Engineer had issued several documents from which it is clear that he was working as claimed.
No written appointment letter was issued as I was employed on daily wage basis.
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.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has lost sight of the fact that the workman has number adduced any evidence to establish that he was appointed w.e.f.
I was appointed as carpenter by the respondent management on 1.4.1996.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent made a companyplaint that though he companytinued to work as a Carpenter, his services were illegally dispensed with from 30.4.1997 onwards.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 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 .
