JAI NARAIN SINGH Vs. INTER DECKER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 2nd September, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi whereby the learned court allowed the application of the Respondent under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC and ordered framing of additional issues and the award dated 30th July, 2008 whereby the learned Presiding officer held that the workman Petitioner abandoned his service and thus, refused to grant him any relief.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that in the present case no intention of abandonment of service has been made out against the Petitioner. In fact, on termination of his service on 3rd June, 1999, the workman had promptly made a representation to the Respondent/ Management vide demand notice dated 10th June, 1999 through central labour union asking them to reinstate him in service with immediate effect. To constitute abandonment there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. However, in the instant case no such intention can be imputed on the workman when he was diligently pursing his case before the Management. Reliance is placed on G.T. Lad and others vs. Chemical and Fibers of India Ltd., 1979 (1) SCC 590. It is further contended that the learned Labour Court has wrongly placed reliance on the call back letters dated 4th June, 1999, 12th June, 1999, 19th June, 1999 and 24th August, 1999 of the Respondent asking the workman to resume duties. The AD cards associated with the registered letters do not bear the stamps of the post office and the only AD Card which bears the postal mark is the one which was returned undelivered. Further, no adverse inference can be drawn against the workman from the fact that the letters dated 4th June, 1999 was sent by speed post and was not returned undelivered. Learned counsel contends that the learned Labour Court erred in accepting as evidence, a photocopy of an alleged response filed by the respondent before the conciliation officer despite the fact that the records of conciliation proceedings indicate that no such reply was filed and no representative of respondent was present before the conciliation officer. Also, the respondents witness Shri B.S. Syal had for the first time in his evidence admitted that on 8th June, 1999 the Petitioner along with the labour inspector had visited the premises for the purpose of securing reinstatement of workman and also produced a joining report exhibited as MW1/5 which was not a part of conciliation file. It is lastly contended that the Petitioner would not abandon his five year old employment with the Management merely on account of an outstanding amount of Rs. 8,000/- when no case of default in making payment is made out against him.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.