Allahabad High Court
Ram Naresh Sharma vs Industrial Triibunal -Ii U.P.23 ... on 6 July, 2010
Author: Satyendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Satyendra Singh Chauhan
Court No. - 22 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4152 of 2005 Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Sharma Respondent :- Industrial Triibunal -Ii U.P.23 A.P.Sen Road Lucknow Thru.It Petitioner Counsel :- Vimol Kumar,Km.Vishwa Mohini Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ganga Singh,Shishiir Jain Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ganga Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner and an award was rendered in favour of the petitioner on 12.11.1982 The petitioner in pursuance to the said award was reinstated in service and thereafter the opposite parties cooked up a false case and did not pay him salary. The petitioner proceeded to move an application under the Industrial Disputes Act. The said application was allowed. Against the said order the opposite parties preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 20.5.1995. The petitioner thereafter was paid salary in pursuance to the order passed in appeal. Thereafter the petitioner was again allowed to work by the opposite parties. The petitioner thereafter joined his duties and received a letter dated 29.3.2005 from the opposite parties that he will work in day hours to which the petitioner replied through his Union and specifically stated that he is working in the night shift, therefore, it would not be possible for him to work round the clock. He also submitted that one person was doing duty in the day hours may be deputed in place of the petitioner namely Naseem ,Watchman. The said suggestion of the petitioner was not accepted and the petitioner continued to work during night hours. On the basis of the aforesaid letter a presumption was drawn that the petitioner has abandoned the service and did not want to join the post in question. Therefore by abandonment of the employment, the petitioner's services have come to an end. Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner, which did not find favour with the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Labour Tribunal only on the ground that the petitioner has abandoned his employment.
Looking to the long drawn litigation by the petitioner time and again in two rounds of litigation the presumption drawn that the petitioner has abandoned the employment is not correct but in fact he has all throughout perused his case to be 2 reinstated. He always ready to work and to discharge his duties till the time he was permitted. There is no evidence on record to presume that the petitioner has abandoned the employment. In fact the petitioner has not abandoned the employment. The abandonment of employment can not be presumed in absence of any evidence and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated only on the basis of presumption. The finding recorded by the Labour Tribunal is perverse and against the record and thereby the award dated 4.1.2005 is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the award dated 4.1.2005 (Published on 13.4.2005). The petitioner shall be reinstated in service by the opposite parties with 50% back wages.
Order Date :- 6.7.2010 BLY