Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, 2024:HHC:14788 learned counsel for the petitioner is that court below, while passing impugned awards has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result thereof, findings contrary to the record and detrimental to the interest of the petitioner-University have come to the fore. He, while making this court peruse evidence adduced on record at the behest of the petitioner-University vehemently argued that once respondents themselves admitted that after passing of award, they had not given joining physically on 4.6.2018/12.7.2021, rather same were sent through speed post, there was no occasion, if any, for the learned tribunal to accept the prayer made on their behalf to order payment of wages on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State Government from the alleged date of joining submitted through speed post, rather they ought to have been granted such wages from the date they physically gave joining.

15. If the cross-examination conducted by this witness is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that respondent Joginder Singh had submitted his joining by way of post on 4.12.2018, but such prayer at the relevant time was not accepted. Though this witness denied that after passing of award, respondents reported for the duty personally at the time of submitting joining report, but he nowhere disputed factum with regard to receipt of communication dated 4.12.2018, sent by the respondents thorough speed post, rather this witness admitted that respondent had 2024:HHC:14788 submitted his joining Ex.AW1/C through speed post. He denied that respondent had submitted his joining report through speed post since his joining report submitted personally by him was not accepted. This witness admitted that University did not call the respondents to join duty through speed post for the reason that petitioner-university had laid challenge to the award before the High Court. He deposed that petition was decided by the High Court on 3.11.2018, but he is not aware that on 4.12.2018, respondent otherwise had submitted the joining report in the office of Registrar and it was received in the office of the Registrar. While fairly admitting that award passed by the Tribunal was not stayed by the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, this witness further admitted that no joining report was submitted by the respondent and others after passing of the judgment by the High Court.

2024:HHC:14788

17. Dr. Som Raj Sharma, RW1, in his examination-in-Chief though stated that respondents did not visit the university personally to join the duty after passing of the award, but in his cross-examination categorically admitted that respondents had sent the joining report through speed post. True it is that in the case at hand, there is nothing to suggest that respondent herein had physically joined on 4.6.2018, rather as per his own statement, he made himself available for joining physically on 21.5.2020, but at the same time, there is nothing on record to suggest that after receipt of communication dated 4.6.2018 (Ext.PW1/C) communication, if any, was sent by the petitioner in response thereof calling upon respondents to join duties, rather as per own case of the petitioner, as has been stated by Mr. Som Raj Sharma RW1, petitioner university instead of accepting the joining given by the respondents through speed post decided to file writ petitions before this Court which ultimately came to be dismissed.

20. Though Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that joining, if any, given by way of speed post is of no consequence, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that after passing of award by the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, which never came to be stayed by the High Court, respondents herein were ever prevented by the petitioner from joining, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with afore submission of Mr. Sharma for the reason that once factum with regard to receipt of communication dated 4.6.2018, sent through speed post is not denied by the petitioner coupled with the fact that petitioner-university was in the know of award dated 24.4.2018 2024:HHC:14788 passed by the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal and its prayer for interim relief, thereby staying the operation of award was rejected by this Court, it had no option but to call upon the respondents to give joining. As has been discussed herein above, though there is no convincing evidence suggestive of the fact till 4.12.2018, respondents herein had made themselves available for joining physically but bare perusal of communication dated 4.6.2018 clearly reveals that respondents were keen to join duty and in that regard, they had taken steps by sending joining by post to the petitioner, but yet they were not permitted to join, rather were made to wait till disposal of SLP filed by the petitioner University.