PIONEER PEST CONTROL Vs. RAJBIR SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Labour Court whereby the reference was answered in favour of the workman and against the petitioner company.

(2.) Brief facts as set out by the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the respondent was appointed as Pest Control Helper with the petitioner on 30.4.2001 and after 31.7.2004 he did not report for duty. Thereafter a legal notice dated 15.9.2004 was sent by the respondent workman to the petitioner alleging illegal termination of his service to which the petitioner replied vide notice dated 22.9.2004. Subsequently, an industrial dispute bearing ID No. 66/2004 was raised by the respondent and an award dated 8.1.2007, the respondent was awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 35,000/ - in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that he had never terminated the services of the respondent as he himself had stopped coming for duty. Counsel further submits that the petitioner successfully proved on record that the respondent was being paid salary through cheque on monthly basis. Counsel further submits that the respondent in his demand notice and the statement of claim took a false stand of claiming non -payment of his salary, over time wages, bonus, gratuity, etc and that when it was demanded by the respondent, the petitioner management got annoyed and terminated the services of the respondent. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been paying the salary to the respondent, as proved on record through the bank statement, therefore there was no reason for the respondent to have raised such a false claim of denial of back wages and other benefits to him. Counsel further submits that in the reply sent by the petitioner to the said demand notice, the management clearly took a stand that all his demands and charges were false and fabricated. The respondent workman was also called upon to give the complete details of his outstanding dues with proof so that the same could be verified by the petitioner and instead of giving any response to the same, the respondent preferred to raise an Industrial Dispute against the petitioner.