RAM ASHREY Vs. M/S DELITE PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, the petitioner workman seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 24.02.2004 passed by the Ld. Labour Court in I.D. No. 312/1996 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts as set out by the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a machine man in 1979 and was issued an ESI card after consistent persuasion. He obtained leave on 5.06.1995 till 4.7.1995, but due to ill health of his mother, returned only on 24.7.1995 and reported for duty when he was told to return after 10 days. Thereafter, when he again reported for duty on 10.9.1995, he was told that his services have been terminated after which the petitioner workman on 11.9.1995 lodged a complaint with the Asst. Labour Commissioner; SHO, P.S Ashok Vihar; and to Dy. Commissioner of police. Consequently, on 30.10.1995, the petitioner sent a demand notice to the respondent management and an industrial dispute bearing ID No. 312/1996 was raised. The Labour Court passed an order dated 24.2.2004 vide which it concluded that the workman had settled his dispute with the management and that the services of the petitioner were not terminated and he was not entitled to any relief. Feeling aggrieved with the same the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) REFUTING the said submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondent, submits that the petitioner cannot wriggle out from the said settlement as he was paid an amount of Rs.11,000/ -towards balance amount of his wages, bonus, service gratuity, notice fee, etc on his resigning from the job and the said payment was made through bearer cheque dated 10.09.1995 that too in the presence of Mr. Ram Saran Ram, General Secretary of Engineering Mazdoor Union and in view of the said full and final settlement, the claim raised by the petitioner was false and he is liable for committing perjury with the court. Counsel thus submits that the Ld. Labour Court after carefully scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the management has succeeded in proving that the workman had received a sum of Rs.11,000/ -towards full and final settlement of his claims and this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not reappreciate the said finding of the facts when no perversity or illegality can be found in the same.