(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 30.8.2006, whereby the learned Labour Court has granted reinstatement of the respondent no.2 workman with 40% of his salary as back wages.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the respondent no. 2 workman was working with the petitioner management as a general worker with last drawn wages as Rs.2100/- per month. As per the workman, his services were illegally terminated by the petitioner w.e.f. 25.12.2001 without any order in writing. The workman served a legal notice dated 28.12.2001 upon the petitioner which was not replied to and an industrial dispute was raised whereby vide an award dated 30.8.2006, the respondent workman was granted reinstatement alongwith 40% wages. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
(3.) Assailing the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the grievance that the learned Labour Court had ignored the earlier settlement dated 23.4.2005 entered into between the parties whereby the respondent had received an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards full and final settlement of his alleged claim. The other grievance raised by the petitioner was that the respondent no.2 did not remain totally unemployed as after his alleged removal from the service on 25.12.2001, he was engaged in agricultural activities wherefrom he was earning substantial amount of income. It was also contended that the income from the agricultural source was within the knowledge of the respondent no.2 and it was obligatory upon him to have disclosed his income and on his failure to do so, the learned Labour Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against him. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the award passed by the learned Labour Court and submitted that no fault can be found with the reasoning given by the Court.