MAYUR AUTO AGENCY Vs. RAMESH SINGH MANRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is to the award dated 9 th October, 2006 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued and vide order dated 16 th January, 2009, subject to deposit by the petitioner of 50% of back wages in this Court, the operation of the award was stayed. A sum of `87,500/- is stated to have been so deposited. The pleadings have been completed. The petitioner employer in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondent workman has stated that the petitioner employer has now learnt that the respondent workman has been employed in one M/s Nirmal Bearings since the year 2003 i.e. since prior to preferring the claim against the petitioner employer. Upon the same being put to the respondent workman present in Court on 7 th July, 2011, he denied that he had been so employed though he admitted his signature on one of the documents filed in this regard by the petitioner employer along with its rejoinder; however the respondent workman offered an explanation therefor. Though the petitioner employer in support of its plea of employment of the respondent workman with M/s Nirmal Bearings has filed other documents also but in view of the disputed questions of fact raised, it was ordered on 7 th July, 2011 that no fresh adjudication can be directed or undertaken. The fact remains that the petitioner employer before the Industrial Adjudicator did not take any such plea; the petition was as such directed to be heard on merits.

(3.) THE petitioner employer had before the Industrial Adjudicator contended that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days in a year with the management; that though he was employed with the petitioner employer since the year 1997 but had on 10 th February, 1999 settled all his dues and left the employment of the petitioner employer; that he rejoined the services in June, 2002 and remained absent from duty from 16th September, 2002 without any intimation and failed to join back inspite of being called upon; it was further pleaded that the petitioner employer was ready to reinstate the respondent workman but without any back wages.