VEERANARAYANA Vs. MANAGEMENT OF NEW CHITRA TALKIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first of the two Writ Petitions is by a workman and the second by the Management of New Chitra Talkies, Mangalore, which have been presented aggrieved by the same Award of the Labour Court, Mangalore, in Ref No. ID LCM 25/77.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The Petitioner in W, P. No. 13009 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was in the employment of the 1st Respondent. New Chitra Talkies, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer'). An industrial dispute was raised by the workman alleging that the employer had refused employ-ment to him, but had taken the stand that the workman himself had abandoned the employment, though it was not true. As the conciliation proceedings failed, the Conciliation Officer made a failure report to the State Government. Thereafter the State Government made an order dated 14th December 1977 referring the following points of dispute for industrial adjudication ;

(3.) Sri K. Subba Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for the workman, in support of his case submitted as follows : The workman has been in the service of the employer continuously for about 28 years. Except that there has been change of management, the workman has been in the service of the employer since 1953. On 1-1-1976 while the workman was on duty, he was taken by the Police and was kept in their custody till 11-1-1976. Immediately after his release on 11-1-1976 he reported for duty, but the employer did not take him on duty stating that the Police had warned the employer against continuing the workman in employment, but only paid him a sum of Rs. 25/-. Inspire of repeated requests made in person, the employer did not take him to duty. Having waited for more than three months, the work- man addressed a registered letter dated 27-4-1976 to the employer demanding that he should be provided with employment. To the said letter, the management sent a reply dated 3-5-1976. In the said letter, for the first time, the employer took the stand that the workman himself had sent a word to the employer that he had left the job, though it was not true. Thereafter the workman raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 12-5-1976 (vide Exhibit-A in W. P. No. 13369 of 1978) The management gave its reply dated 4-6-1976 (Exhibit-B in W. P. No. 13369 of 1978) refuting the claim of the workman. The conciliation proceedings got interrupted as the workman was arrested under the provisions of the D.I. R. on 14-9-1976 and he was released only on 21-3-1977. Thereafter on consideration of the failure report sent by the Conciliation Officer, the State Government made the order of reference on 12/14-12-1977 (Exhibit-C in W.P. 13369/78). On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court recorded a finding on the first point in favour of the workman, but nevertheless gave relief only to the extent of salary from 1st January 1976 till the end of April 1976 and observed that the workman was entitled to raise another dispute regarding termination of service. Such a view taken by the Labour Court was untenable. The dispute itself related to the termination of the service of the workman by the employer and, therefore, and in view of the finding recorded by the Labour Court itself to the effect that the management was not justified in taking the stand that the workman had abandoned the services, the relief of reinstatement with back wages ought to have been given.