DHARMENDRA MISHRA Vs. ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated May 07, 2014 allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent against the award dated July 08, 1999 wherein the Labour Court held that Dharmendra Mishra, the Appellant herein had not abandoned the job and thus he was directed to be provided duty in Delhi with full back wages and continuity in service, Dharmendra Mishra prefers the present appeal. By the impugned judgment though the learned Single Judge held that Dharmendra Mishra had not abandoned the job however, instead of duties at Delhi with full back wages the learned Single Judge directed payment of lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.

(2.) Dharmendra Mishra joined as a Clerk on September 01, 1969 with the Respondent which is a partnership firm carrying its business of transportation throughout India, thus having branches all over the country. On August 10, 1984 Dharmendra Mishra was transferred to Allahabad whereafter he was retransferred to Delhi on May 10, 1987. Since some of the employees of the Respondent were misappropriating the funds an FIR was registered on the complaint of Dharmendra Mishra as Inspector wherein one of the accused was his brother-in-law who was ultimately declared a proclaimed offender in the year 1985. On December 07, 1987 Dharmendra Mishra was transferred as Inspector to Bangalore however, he requested for postponement twice which was allowed. In August 1988 Dharmendra Mishra reported for duty at Bangalore but came back to Delhi ostensibly for some clarification on September 17, 1988 and did not join back at Bangalore. Thereafter Dharmendra Mishra wrote various letters and filed a complaint wherein conciliation proceedings started. Finally a reference was made to the Labour Court on the following terms:-

(3.) In the statement of claim Dharmendra Mishra pleaded that since he exposed the illegal activity of the Management and a fraud of Rs. 68 lakhs was detected and reported to the police thus he was being victimised. He claimed to be in continuous employment with the Management at Delhi working as Accounts Clerk and that he had no independent work and his entire work was controlled and supervised by the Supervisor Officer. Dharmendra Mishra's claimed that he was sent to Bangalore where he was given a transfer letter to Delhi. Thus he was to report to Delhi office and he was prohibited to go to the office at Bangalore. In his evidence he also pointed out that when he went to Bangalore he was given beatings and maltreated. Though he was assured security if he joined the duties in Bangalore however, he was not given adequate protection. The termination of Dharmendra Mishra amounted to retrenchment and was in violation of the statutory provisions. Thus he claimed duty in Delhi with full back wages and consequential benefits including damages.