RAMJAG SINGH Vs. RATTAN METAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/workman seeks a writ of certiorari with respect to the award dated 17th January, 2000 of the Labour Court holding the petitioner/workman not entitled to any relief inspite of answering the reference in favour of the petitioner/workman that his services had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the respondent/management. The respondent/management has not challenged the award. The Labour Court has held the petitioner/workman not entitled to any relief for the reason of the respondent/management having in its reply to the statement of claim of the petitioner/workman pleaded that it had closed down its business. Even though the respondent/management after filing the reply was proceeded against ex parte and neither cross examined the petitioner/workman nor lead any evidence of its own, the Labour Court held that since the petitioner/workman notwithstanding the said plea in the reply of the respondent/management, in his affidavit by way of evidence did not utter a single word that the management was still doing business, reinstatement was not possible. However, the Labour court did not even advert to the fact that even if reinstatement was not possible, as to why the petitioner was not entitled to any other relief by way of back wages till the date of closure and/or by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The award thus to the said extent qualifies as perverse, so as to invite interference by this Court.

(2.) The petitioner/workman had worked with the respondent management for nine years as a helper before his termination w.e.f. July, 1989. The petitioner/workman was being paid Rs. 562/- per month at the time of termination of his employment.

(3.) The respondent/management in reply to the said claim before the Labour Court inter alia pleaded "In any case now the management is not in business ever since long and has completely given up all activities and businesses for some unavoidable reasons and unforeseen circumstances of personal inability and disability". The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said pleading in the reply is vague; no date even of closure was stated, no document was filed and in any case the burden of proving closure, if any, of business was on the respondent/management and the Labour court could not have drawn any adverse inference against the petitioner/workman in not deposing that the respondent/management continued to be in business. I may notice that the petitioner/workman had filed a rejoinder to the reply aforesaid and in which he had controverted the plea of the respondent/management having closed the business. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding of illegal termination being in favour of the petitioner/workman, in terms of the judgments in (i) Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration, 1984 AIR(SC) 1805 (ii) Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajulu, 2008 2 LLJ 1061 & (iii) Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2009 3 SCC 124, the relief of back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement and which in Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. as high as Rs. 10,00,000/- was granted, ought to have been followed.