OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. ONIDA SAVAK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Om Prakash Sharma while working with the respondent No.1 Onida Savak Ltd. (in short the Onida) as a supervisor was transferred from Delhi office to Guwahati. Om Prakash wrote letters to the management of Onida on December 18 and 19, 1996 requesting not to transfer his services to Guwahati taking the plea that his wife was unwell and he would not be able to go to Guwahati. Management of Onida declined the request to withdraw the transfer order vide its letter dated December 21, 1996. It is the case of Om Prakash that on December 22, 1996 he fell ill and remained under treatment till January 12, 1997. It is claimed by Om Prakash that he sent the information regarding his illness to the management vide fax letter dated December 29, 1996 and reported to duty on January 13, 1997 with a fitness certificate dated January 06, 1997 but he was not allowed to join the duty. It is further claimed that to make a false claim of nonresumption of duties against Om Prakash, the management of Onida sent him letters dated January 31, 1997, February 12, 1997 and February 20, 1997 asking him to resume duties. Om Prakash again tried to resume duties, however he was not allowed. The management struck his name off the rolls on account of his absence from duty from December 23, 1996 and according to Om Prakash the same amounted to retrenchment which was done without complying with the requirements under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act (in short the ID Act). It is thus claimed that the termination was illegal.

(2.) In the claim petition Om Prakash also stated that though he was designated as supervisor he never performed supervisory, managerial and administrative duties and only performed the duties of workman such as maintaining statutory record, PF, ESIC, medical insurance, bill processing and other personal matters. Om Prakash further claimed that since he was not relieved from his duty at Delhi, thus he could not have joined at Guwahati and the delay in going to Guwahati was on account of his sickness due to which he remained under treatment till January 12, 1997.

(3.) Vide the award dated August 27, 2007 it was held that the duties of Om Prakash were that of a workman, however the second issue was decided against Om Prakash that he failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally by the management and thus he was not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the award dated August 27, 2007 Om Prakash filed W.P.(C) 8729/2007 which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated January 08, 2008. Hence the present appeal.