Delhi High Court
Parshuram Shah vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 3 September, 2007
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
JUDGMENT Hima Kohli, J.
1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 29th May, 2006 passed by the Labour Court whereunder the issue as to whether the petitioner workman had voluntarily left the services without information w.e.f. 13th February, 2003 and had abandoned his services, was held in favor of the respondent management and it was further held that the services of the petitioner workman had not been terminated by the respondent management in any manner. Thus a no relief award was passed against the petitioner workman.
2. Facts of the case as set up by the petitioner workman in his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court are that the petitioner workman was appointed with the respondent management w.e.f. October, 1998 as a Security Guard on last drawn wages of Rs. 3,250/- per month. It is stated that on making certain demands like appointment letter, leave book, weekly and annual leave overtime, wage increment etc., the respondent management got annoyed with him, and terminated his services w.e.f. 13th February, 2003 without giving him any notice or charge sheet and also without giving him salary for the period from 1st February, 2003 to 12th February, 2003. Thereafter the petitioner workman served the respondent management with a demand notice dated 11th March, 2003, but the same was not replied to by the respondent management. This was followed by conciliation proceedings, on failure of which the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. In its written statement, among other contentions, the respondent management raised an objection about the locus standi of the Union to raise the dispute and on merits it was stated that the petitioner had left the services of the management voluntarily, without any information w.e.f. 13th February, 2003. It was stated that the petitioner was deputed as a Security Guard at the Office of a client for providing security services and on 12.02.2003, the respondent received a complaint against the petitioner from the said client who asked for a replacement. As a result, the respondent recalled the petitioner to its office for further posting and deputed him to join duty at the office of another client, but the petitioner did not report at all for duty. The petitioner workman filed his rejoinder and based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether workman and his union has no locus standi to raise the present Industrial dispute and there is no espousal and community of interest? OPM
2. Whether the workman voluntarily left the services without information w.e.f. 13.02.2003 and abandoned his services?
3. Whether the services of Shri Parsu Ram Shah, S/o Shri Mahesh Shah have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect
3. Thereafter arguments were addressed and evidence was recorded on behalf of both the parties, and after considering the same, the Labour Court answered the first issue against the respondent management and in favor of the petitioner workman. However, the second issue was decided in favor of the respondent management and on the third issue, it was held that the respondent management had not terminated the services of the workman in any manner. It is the aforesaid award that has been assailed in the present proceedings by the petitioner workman.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner workman submits that the impugned award is bad in law inasmuch as the respondent management had failed to prove the case of abandonment of service by the petitioner workman as set up by it before the Labour Court. It was submitted that the respondent management had failed to prove that any letter was sent to the petitioner for joining duty and no such letter was exhibited by the respondent management. An effort was also made in course of arguments to bring out the contradictions in the evidence tendered by the MW-1, General Manager of the respondent management, and MW-2, the Administrative Officer of M/s. Pepsi Noida. It was contended that the claim of the petitioner workman was illegally dismissed on the ground that he had not cross-examined the management witnesses on the point that he was asked to join duties before the Conciliation Officer and on the point that there was a complaint against him from the previous client of the management and he was directed to report for duty to some other client which he did not do w.e.f.13th February, 2003.
5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner workman and have also perused the records including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them. On consideration of the material placed on the record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned award. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the findings therein have been arrived at after due application of mind by the learned Presiding Officer and after having considered the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them. The Labour Court has taken into account, and rightly so, the fact that while MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3 have stated categorically in their evidence by way of affidavits that on receiving a complaint against the petitioner workman, he was called to the office and was directed to join duty at the office of another client, he did not report for duty at all w.e.f. 13th February, 2003, and none of the three management witnesses were cross-examined on the said point.
6. A perusal of the evidence tendered by the petitioner workman by way of his affidavit shows that he has not stated therein that he had gone to the office of the respondent management after 13th February, 2003 to join duties. It has also not been explained as to why he remained quiet for a period of one month before making a complaint to the Asst. Labour Commissioner on 11th March, 2003. A perusal of the records further reveals that the petitioner workman did not cross-examine the management witnesses on their statement that he was offered to be taken back in service even during the conciliation proceedings. Thus the stand of the respondent management that the petitioner workman had abandoned his job voluntarily remained unrebutted. It cannot be said that the respondent/management failed to prove that the petitioner had abandoned the services. There is also no cross-examination of the management witnesses to the effect that even during the course of the conciliation proceedings the respondent/management offered to take the petitioner workman back in service. Even during the course of his cross-examination, the management witness reiterated the offer to take the petitioner workman back in service. There are no such glaring contradictions in the evidence of the management witnesses so as to draw an adverse inference against them. It is only after taking the aforesaid facts into consideration, that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the management had not terminated the services of the petitioner workman in any manner.
7. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner workman, if entertained, would amount to interfering with the findings of facts as arrived at by the Labour Court after due appreciation of evidence. Law is well settled in this respect that the Labour Court is the final court of facts and it is not appropriate for this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to reappreciate evidence or to interfere with the findings of facts as arrived at by the Labour Court. The jurisdiction exercised by the writ court under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate in nature. Reappraisal of evidence without sufficient reason in law, to arrive at a finding of fact contrary to those arrived at by the Subordinate Court, is not the intent of exercising the powers of judicial review. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:
(i) Harbans Lal v. Jagmohan Saran
(ii) B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
(iii) Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers? Union AIR 2000 SC 1508
(iv) P.G.I. of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh v. Rajkumar (2001) 2 SCC 54.
(v) Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Asha Ram and Anr.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground on which this Court may interfere with the impugned award. The findings of the Labour Court are based on an appreciation of the material placed on the record. The same are neither perverse, nor arbitrary or capricious for warranting interference. The writ petition is therefore dismissed in liming.