HARI PRAKASH Vs. VIPIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the award dated 24.02.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court XIX, (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in LIR D No.154/08 whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed without granting him any relief.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the petition are that the petitioner filed a claim under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'ID Act') against the management inter alia on the allegations that he was employed with the management since 01.10.1987 as Feeder Man on last drawn wages of Rs.4900 per month and performed his duty honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of the management without any complaint, however, the management was not providing him the statutory benefits and instead the management was looking for an opportunity to oust him from service. On 01.12.2007 while he was on duty, he was called in the office and was suddenly asked to resign from service but he refused. Even then his services were terminated without assigning any reason and without payment of wages for the month of November, 2007. A legal notice of demand was sent through union on 13.12.2007 to which the management did not respond. The workman claimed to be jobless since the date of his alleged termination as such, sought a direction to the management to reinstate him back in service with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

(3.) The claim was contested by the management on the ground that initially the workman was recruited as a Helper and lastly he was working as a Feeder Man. The workman was issued letter of appointment but he pleaded a false cause of action against the management. In fact, he himself wanted to leave the employment. He even resigned on 21.05.1997 which was not accepted as the management cooperated in settling his home problem. It was denied that the workman was demanding legal benefits or the management was looking for an opportunity to oust him from service. In fact the workman absented himself on 01.12.2007, therefore, the allegation that he was asked to resign and on his refusal his services were terminated was false. It was admitted that the workman has not received the salary for the month of November, 2007 but the management was ready to pay the same. The receipt of demand notice was admitted and it was claimed that a reply to the said notice was duly sent but the workman did not comply with the directions contained therein.