Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Pearl Global Industries Ltd. ... vs The Presiding Officer on 20 May, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP Nos.10798 and 10853 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
1. CWP No.10798 of 2013
M/s Pearl Global Industries Ltd. Gurgaon ...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon
and another ...Respondents
2. CWP No.10853 of 2013
M/s Pearl Global Industries Ltd. Gurgaon ...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon
and another ...Respondents
DATE OF DECISION: 20.5.2013
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
By this common order, both the aforementioned writ petitions would be decided together as they arise from a similar award and involve adjudication of similar questions of fact and law. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are culled from CWP No.10798 of 2013.
Challenge in these two petitions is to the impugned award dated 17.01.2013 whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service but with 50% back wages from the date of his termination till reinstatement in job.
CWP Nos.10798 and 10853 of 2013 -2- It is not disputed that the workman had served as a Tailor with the petitioner from 01.04.1992 to 22.08.2006. The contentions put forward by the management are two-fold: one, there was a full and final settlement between the management and the workman. The second is, that the workman had accepted and received a cheque bearing No.301546 dated 23.11.2006 for a sum of Rs.83,159/- as full and final settlement which was subsequently encashed by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner management vehemently argued that the impugned award is a result of misreading and mis- appreciation of the evidence available on record and is based on surmises and conjectures and is, thus, liable to be set aside. He submits that the present case is not a case of illegal termination of services of the workman. He submits that the workman had asked for full and final settlement on 22.08.2006 which request was accepted by the petitioner-company on 23.11.2006. He was paid an amount of Rs.83,159/- by way of a cheque dated 23.11.2006 which was duly accepted and received by the workman. The full and final settlement has been signed by the workman on 23.11.2006 in acknowledgement.
The Labour Court has returned a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence that in the full and final settlement the reason of leaving is mentioned as "resignation". But no such resignation letter has been proved on record by the respondent-company before the labour Court. Mr. Natar Pal, Assistant Manager (MW1), in his cross-examination has admitted that no resignation letter was submitted by the workman before taking his full and final dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner also CWP Nos.10798 and 10853 of 2013 -3- submits that there was no such resignation letter as mentioned in the full and final settlement document and it was only on the oral request of the workman that he was relieved from service after being paid full and final dues.
The Labour Court embarked upon an exercise of settling equities between the parties and reached the conclusion that the workman had been given a raw deal by the management and termination of his services by the management was wrongful and unlawful and in violation of industrial safeguards provided by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In the present case, there is no valid ground in the view of this Court to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Labour Court. It is a settled principle that the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of a Tribunal is there only where there is manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings and where there is clear ignorance or disregard to any provisions of law. In the present case, the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the writ Court could interfere with the present award in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction only to reach a different conclusion as though it were a Court of appeal.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petitions and the same are dismissed in limini as not warranting admission for regular hearing.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 20.05.2013 manju