ANAND KUMAR Vs. EMKAY INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner/workman, who was employed as a helper with the respondent company, had challenged the Award dated 1st May, 2012, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court - XI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 265/2008 whereby the plea of reinstatement in service with back wages was denied to him even after coming to the conclusion that his services have been illegally terminated by the respondent/management and a lump sum compensation of Rs. 40,000/ - besides Rs. 10,000/ - as litigation expenses were awarded to him.

(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner/workman, he was employed with the respondent/management since 1995 as a helper. His last drawn salary was Rs. 3150/ - per month. According to the workman, the respondent/management was guilty of violating the labour laws and not providing him legal facilities like overtime wages, leave wages, appointment letter with correct date of entry, attendance cards, bonus, earned wages etc. When the workman tried to raise his voice, the respondent/management terminated his services on 12th March, 2008. The respondent/management contested the claim of the workman, inter alia, on the ground that the workman was working with the Management since the year 1999 as helper and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,150/ - per month. He had taken loan of Rs. 15,000/ - from the management and signed a voucher for the same. When the Management wanted to deduct the said loan from the salary of the workman, he started blackmailing the management and threatened to file false and vague case against the management. He himself left the work without any notice or information to the management. The management tried to call him back on duty but despite efforts, the workman is not ready to come back on duty with the Management.

(3.) EVIDENCE was adduced from both the sides and after examining the evidence, the Labour Court vide its award under challenge came to the conclusion that the termination of the service of the petitioner/workman was illegal and prior to termination of his services, provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. However, as regards the relief, the workman was not granted the benefit of reinstatement in service and back wages but instead, a compensation of Rs. 40,000/ - was awarded. Relevant findings of the Labour Court in this regard are reproduced below: -