MANAGEMENT OF GENERAL INDUSTRIES CO Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra-Court appeal filed by the General Industries Company, the appellant, the challenge is to the order dated 5 th October, 2010 by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10507/2006. In the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the ex parte impugned award dated 8 th December, 2004 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in I.D. No. 346/1999. By the said award, the Industrial Adjudicator had held that the appellant had not been able to prove and establish misconduct by the respondent-workman. The respondent had worked for nine years but instead of reinstatement and backwages, lumpsum compensation of Rs.70,000/- has been directed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant had also challenged the order dated 10 th March, 2006 dismissing his application for setting aside the ex parte award.

(2.) The industrial dispute was referred vide order dated 14 th July, 1999. The respondent had filed statement of claims stating that he had started working with the appellant with effect from 3 rd April, 1989 but his services were terminated on 14 th October, 1998. His last drawn wages were Rs.2,361/- per month. The averments in the statement of the claims were proved by the respondent by evidence by way of affidavit. The respondent denied that he was absenting from duties or was threatening the management. He had stated that he was unemployed but his wife was working in an export house. He had his own house. The appellant had filed written statement but did not lead evidence and failed to prove that the services of the respondentworkman were terminated in accordance with law.

(3.) The aforesaid award was made on 8 th December, 2004 and was published in the gazette on 27 th July, 2005. On 19 th September, 2005, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award. By order dated 10 th March, 2006, the application for setting aside of the ex parte award was dismissed by the Industrial Adjudicator holding, inter alia, that the same had been filed beyond 30 days of publication of the award and, therefore, the Labour Court had become functus officio.