RISHAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BOHAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Petition challenges an order passed by 12th Labour Court, Mumbai on a reference preferred by Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Mumbai, under Sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication in the matter of reinstatement of the Petitioner-workman.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner-workman is that he was not allowed to join his duty on and from 1 July 1994; and that, whilst he was not allowed to join duty, by a letter dated 30 Aug. 1995 (received by the Petitioner on 7 Sept. 1995), his services were terminated by removing his name from the muster roll with effect from 1 Sept. 1995. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Respondent did not issue any charge-sheet or conduct any inquiry against the Petitioner or give him any opportunity of being heard and terminated his services without following due process of natural justice. It is contended that the services of the Petitioner were terminated without any notice or salary in lieu of notice. In the reference, before the Labour Court, both parties led evidence. The Petitioner-workman led evidence to the effect that he was not allowed to join duty on and from 1 July 1994, whilst the Respondent led evidence to the effect that the Petitioner himself abandoned work and did not report for duty after 1 July 1994 and in spite of communication of the Respondent calling upon him to join the duty. The Labour Court accepted the Respondent's case that the Petitioner-workman abandoned the work and did not report for duty after 1 July 1994. It rejected the Petitioner-workman's case that he was terminated illegally with effect from 1 July 1994 or by a formal communication issued on 30 Aug. 1995.