CHAND SINGH Vs. SIGMA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 23 rd July, 2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in an Industrial Dispute No. 275/1002 wherein the learned Labour Court held that the workman had abandoned his job by absenting from work and not joining despite letters written to him by the Management and he was never terminated and thus refused to grant him any relief.

(2.) The Petitioner, who appears in person, was asked if he wanted legal aid. However, the Petitioner specifically denied the same and staed that he would contest the case on his own. He contends that the action of the Management in not allowing the Petitioner to join the duty despite the directions of the learned Presiding Officer is illegal. The Petitioner was very much willing to join the duty however, he was neither given his proper seat and was compelled to sit at the gate of factory premises nor was he allowed to sign the attendance register. On the representation of the Petitioner on 4 th November, 1993 the Labour Inspector had visited the premises and prepared his report dated 9 th November, 1993 but he did not appear before the learned Presiding Officer despite the directions and imposition of costs of Rs.500/-, as a result of which the award was passed against the Petitioner. He further contends that the action of the Respondent in terminating his service is in violation of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights. At the time of his termination the Management neither issued a charge sheet nor one month notice as provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act), hence the action of the Management is illegal. The Petitioner lastly contends that the averment of the Respondent Management that it has only one factory is incorrect. He has filed various documents with his affidavit to show that there are number of companies of Respondent and thus the statement of the Petitioner that he was transferred to Mayapuri factory in 1989 is correct and since the Respondent has filed a fake affidavit before this Court that it has no other sister concerns action is required to be taken against the Respondent and the Petition is liable to be allowed on this ground itself.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent Management contends that the learned Labour Court passed the award after taking into the account the material placed on record by the parties and on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The Management never disallowed the Petitioner to enter the premises. In fact the Petitioner himself abandoned his job out of his own free will. The workman started absenting himself from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f. 24 th December, 1991 without any leave or information. The Respondent sent several letters dated 21 st January, 1992, 28 th January, 1992, 22 nd February, 1992 and 16 th March, 1992, to the Petitioner asking him to report on his duty however, the Petitioner never availed the opportunity to join back. Even before the Labour Inspector the Management offered the Petitioner to join back however, the same was denied by him. Learned counsel further contends that when the workman fails to join duty, he is not entitled to any relief. Since the workman was continuously asked to report back on his duty and the Petitioner did not avail of this opportunity he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and file the writ petition putting the entire blame on the Management. Even after his alleged termination, the workman did not find the job because of this litigation and has himself stated that he was doing agricultural job. The Labour Court is the final Court of facts and the high Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate evidence or interefere with the finding of facts arrived by the labour Court. Reliance is placed on Parsu Ram Sahah vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5986/2007 (Delhi) decided on 3 rd September, 2007. The learned counsel lastly contends that the Respondent is a partnership firm and had only one factory at the relevant time. M/s Right Guard Rubber Pvt. Ltd. was a different entity under the Companies Act. All other companies, details of which are provided by the Petitioner were non-existent at the time when the Petitioner claims he was transferred and were incorporated much later.