OM PRAKASH Vs. LAMBA PLASTICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was in service in the Respondent management as a machine man for nearly six years when his services were terminated. In the claim petition filed before the Labour Court it is contended that as statutory benefit such as appointment letters, name on rolls, paid leave etc. were not provided to the workmen, complaints were made to the Labour Department and on general checking a report was also submitted by it. On the direction of the Labour Department, the management gave them minimum wages, as the same were not being given to them. On 12th June, 2001 the management refused employment orally to its workmen without payment of earned wages. Thereafter, the union sought intervention of the Labour Inspector vide complaint dated 13th June, 2001 for duty and earned wages etc. They also served with a protest and demand notice dated 18th June, 2001. It is stated that the three brothers Inder Mohan Singh, Davinder Singh and Balbir Singh were running the management under different names and styles at the same address. The management illegally stated that illegal strikes were being conducted by the workmen. The management also threatened the workmen for their life, if the case was not withdrawn from the Labour Department. In this regard complaints were also made to the Labour Department and the police and thus the workmen through its union sought reinstatement with full back wages.

(2.) The proceedings before the Conciliation Officer failed and thus the matter was sent for adjudication. The Labour Court vide its order dated 1st September, 2008 held that the workmen voluntarily left the services of the management after taking full and final payment of their dues. Aggrieved by the said order the Appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10015/2009. The said writ petition was dismissed on 13th July, 2009 upholding the order of the Labour Court, with the findings that the Appellant had left the service of the Respondent after receiving full and final payment and thus there was no ground to interfere with the award. The orders dated 1st September, 2008 of the Labour Court and 13th July, 2009 of the learned Single Judge are impugned before us.

(3.) The contention of the Appellant before us was that the impugned orders of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge are erroneous, having ignored all the material evidence on record. It is contended that the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court wrongly held that the defence of the Appellant, that he was made to sign on blank papers under pressure was untenable, as no such plea was taken earlier. The Labour Court held that no such plea was taken in detailed pleading, examination in chief or cross-examination and none of the workmen took a stand that they had been forced to sign the above said resignation and receipt or that they were made to sign on blank papers. The learned Single Judge held that the said plea was taken by the workman for the first time when he appeared for his evidence and that the Appellant in the course of his cross examination has admitted his signatures on the full and final settlement and receipt of the payment with which he was confronted by the management.