1981 INSC 0006
                                                 Kanshi Ram Verma

                                                           Vs

                                           Municipal Committee, Mansa

                                    Civil Appeals Nos. 251 and 252 of 1981

                                     (R.S. Pathak, O. Chinnappa Reddy JJ)

                                                      07.01.1981

                                                     JUDGMENT

PATHAK, J. ­

1. This appeal by special leave 8 is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing a letters patent appeal against the judgment of a learned
single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the Municipal committee, Mansa and quashing an
award made in favour of the appellant Kanshi ram Verma by the Labour Court, Patiala.

2. The appellant was appointed by the Municipal committee, Mansa to the post of Sectional Officer
on a temporary basis. The appellant entered upon his duties on September 4, 1974. He was required
to furnish a certificate from a recognized university that he had passed a diploma examination in
engineering and also and affidavit that he was not a dismissed employee. The Municipal committee
alleges that he did not file the requisite certificate and affidavit and consequently his services were
terminated. The appellant dispute the validity of the termination of his services, Accordingly, an
industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala, and on August 4, 1977 the Labour
Court made an award that the termination was illegal and it directed the reinstatement of the
appellant and payment of Rs. 200 as compensation. The Municipal committee challenged the aware
in writ petition before the High Court. About the same time the appellant also filed a writ petition
contending that he was entitled to full back wages. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a
learned single Judge by a judgment dated November 16, 1979. He allowed the writ petition filed by
the Municipal Committee and quashed the award. The writ petition by the appellant was dismissed.
His letters patent appeal was dismissed by a division Bench on May 20, 1980.

3. The Labour Court found that the appellant had produced a certificate regarding his qualifications
before the Executive Officer, and the copy of it filed by him had been compared with the original
document by a Clerk and had been signed by the Executive Officer in token of his having received
the certificate. On the point whether he was a dismissed employee, he was permitted to file an
unattested declaration by the Executive Officer that he had on his own initiative given up his earlier
employment in the Military Department and the Jakhal Municipal committee. In regard to the
matriculation certificate, he state that it had been lost. The Labour Court accepted the allegations of
the appellant in regard to the fulfilment of the required for employment, and it noted that neither the
Executive Officer nor any other responsible officer of the municipal committee had appeared before
it to rebut the allegations made by the appellant. Holding that the appellant had complied with the
necessary formalities the Labour Court found that the termination of his services was not justified,
accordingly, it made an award in the terms mentioned earlier.
4. In the High Court, the learned single Judge held that the appellant had not furnished a certificate
of a recognised university that he had passed a diploma examination and an affidavit that he was not
a dismissed employee, and said that, therefore, the termination of his services was proper and valid.
In the result, he set aside the award of the Labour Court. A letters patent appeal by the appellant was
dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of the High Court.

5. It appears from the judgment of the learned single Judge that he entered into the evidence on the
record and differed on question of fact from the Labour court. He omitted to consider that the
Municipal Committee had been initially satisfied that the appellant had materially complied with the
requirements for employment and had actually employed him. The order of the learned single Judge
cannot be sustained and the award must be restored, the rights of the parties on the date of the award
being those declared, the award. For the same reason, the order of the division Bench summarily
dismissing the appeal must be set aside.

6. The appeal is allowed, the order dated November 16, 1979 of the learned single Judge and the
order dated May 20, 1980 of the division bench of the High Court, Patiala is restored. There is no
order as to costs except that the respondent, the municipal committee, Mansa will pay the court fee
on this appeal which would have been paid by the appellant.

</html