SHIV KUMAR Vs. HANSITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned Award dated 8.5.2002 passed in ID No. 417/1993 whereby the reference was answered by the learned Labour Court against the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts as set out by the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as a machine man w.e.f 1.11.1976 with the last drawn wages of Rs. 3200 per month, but was not given legal facilities and on demanding the same, the management got annoyed and terminated his services w.e.f 18.06.1992. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 21.7.1992 to the respondent to which he received no reply. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute bearing ID No. 417/1993 whereby vide order dated 8.5.2002 the petitioner workman was held not entitled to any relief. Thereafter, the petitioner workman filed an application u/s 11 of the I.D Act r/w section 114 & O.47 R.1 of CPC for review of the above said award whereby vide order dated 21.4.2004 the said application was held to be not maintainable. Hence, aggrieved by the award dated 8.5.2002, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Piyush Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent management on the post of machine man-cum-supervisor on 1.11.1976 on an initial salary of Rs. 450/-per month. Counsel further submitted that the last drawn salary of the petitioner was Rs. 3,200/- per month. Counsel also submitted that during the entire tenure of service, the workman did not give any opportunity of complaint to his superiors and had worked with the management diligently and honestly. Counsel further submitted that it is only when the petitioner had raised certain legal demands that the management got annoyed and when on 18th June, 1992 the petitioner reported for duty, he was declined duties by the management. Counsel thus submitted that the service of the petitioner was illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the respondent management without their being any rhyme or reason. Counsel also submitted that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner nor any enquiry was set up by the respondent management before terminating the services of the petitioner. Counsel thus submitted that the action of respondent No. 1 was clearly in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Counsel further submitted that the demand notice was sent by the petitioner vide legal notice dated 21st July, 1992 through Registered A.D. cover and UPC, but despite the service of the said letter the respondent management refused to reinstate the petitioner. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner had duly proved his case and in his affidavit filed before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner clearly took a stand that he had never received any letters from the respondent requiring him to join back his duties. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner had taken a stand that the respondent had forged postal receipts so as to cover up its illegal and unjustified action of termination. Counsel further submitted that in his crossexamination, the petitioner clearly denied the receipt of letter dated 8th July, 1992, 22nd June, 1992 and 30th June, 1992 alleged to have been sent by the respondent to the petitioner through UPC. Counsel also submitted that the service by way of UPC is a weak piece of evidence and, therefore, the learned Labour Court wrongly believed the said letters alleged to have been sent by the respondent to the petitioner under UPC. In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors, 1994 SCC(L&S) 904. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that one of the letters was alleged to have been sent by the respondent on 22nd June, 1992 which infact was a holiday in the respondent management and the petitioner cross-examined the witnesses of the respondent management on this aspect also. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in response to the reply of the respondent dated 24.8.92, the petitioner categorically took a stand that he had never received any letters as were referred to by the respondent in their reply and through dubious means the respondent had obtained the service of posting from the post office. In the said rejoinder, the petitioner also took a stand that he was willing to join his duties and from the said reply also called upon the respondent to appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for disposal of the case. Mr. Sharma submitted that in the letter dated 25.9.92 sent by the respondent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner which was proved on record as Ex. RW1/X nowhere the respondent took a stand that any such request was sent to the petitioner thereby calling upon him to join back his duties.