Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Wadsons India (P) Ltd vs The Presiding Officer on 18 February, 2010
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 6142 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6142 of 2009
Date of decision: 18.02.2010
M/s Wadsons India (P) Ltd.
...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another
....... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. I.S.Saggu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
The present writ petition has been preferred by the Management challenging the Award dated 06.02.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Labour Court-II, Faridabad, vide which the reference made on the demand raised by respondent No. 2-workman has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice with the cost, which has been assessed as Rs. 5,000/-. CWP No. 6142 of 2009 2
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the service of respondent No. 2-workman was never terminated by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the workman had abandoned the job and was continuously absenting himself from 26.11.1998 onwards.. Despite sending of letters to him, which were received back undelivered, the workman did not report back for duty and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the service of the workman has been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is not sustainable and deserves to be reversed and the Award set aside. He, in support of his contentions, has taken me through the impugned Award and the pleadings.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-workman submits that the services of the workman were terminated by the Management with effect from 28.11.1998. He contends that when the workman reported for duty on 28.11.1998, the petitioner was not allowed to enter the gate of the Company. He waited outside the gate of the Company but to no effect and the Security Guard of the Company did not allow him to enter through the gate. He on the same day submitted a demand notice i.e. 28.11.1998 to the Conciliation Officer, on which notice was issued to the Management. The letters, which are stated to have been sent to the workman by the Management, were an afterthought just to create evidence and a plea of abandonment of service on the part of the workman. He further contends that on an application moved by the workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the workman was granted the wages up to 28.11.1998 and was accordingly paid by the Management, which fact is not disputed by the Management witness Sarabjit Bhatia, Accountant, MW1. He submits that the Management has taken a plea of CWP No. 6142 of 2009 3 abandonment of service but has not produced the complete records of the workman before the Court to prove this fact that the workman had absented from duty w.e.f. 26.11.1998. His further contention is that had the workman been absenting w.e.f. 26.11.1998, the Management would have initiated the disciplinary proceedings against him. No charge-sheet was issued and no enquiry was conducted by the Management for this mis- conduct on the part of the workman. He, on this basis, submits that the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court, is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The plea of abandonment of service was taken by the Management-petitioner before the Labour Court, the onus was, therefore, on the Management to prove this assertion. The complete records pertaining to the workman were required to be submitted by the Management, which, according to the Award passed by the Labour Court, were not produced by the Management. There is only an oral submission made by Sarabjit Singh MW-1 and that alone could not have been relied upon for giving a finding that the workman has abandoned the job. It becomes more unlikely that the workman had abandoned the job as no charge-sheet was issued or enquiry held meaning thereby that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman by the Management despite he having committed the mis-conduct of absence from duty without any leave. That apart, stand of the Management before the Labour Court was that the workman absented w.e.f. 26.11.1998 from his duty whereas on an application moved under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the workman was granted wages up to 27.11.1998 and the said wages CWP No. 6142 of 2009 4 were paid to the workman which fact is not denied by the Management witness Sarabjit Singh MW-1 . The plea, therefore, of the Management that the workman has absented from duty w.e.f. 26.11.1998 has rightly been not accepted by the Labour Court. The evidence has come on record in the form of statement of WW-3 Anil Sharma, who was posted as a Security Guard in the Company on 28.11.1998 wherein he had stated that he was directed to stop the workman-respondent No. 2 at the gate and he accordingly stopped him on 28.11.1998. The Management has been unable to dislodge the statement of the witness in the cross-examination.
The workman had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination which fact is not disputed by the Management with regard to the days of workman in the 12 preceding months from 28.11.1998. It is also an admitted position that no compensation was paid to the workman. The effect thereof is that the provisions, as contained under Section 25-F of the Act, have not been complied with. The termination thus of the workman-respondent No. 2 was not in accordance with law.
The finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties before it, which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. There is no illegality in the Award passed by the Labour Court, which has been impugned herein, which would call for interference by this Court.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 18, 2010 pj