FINISH INTERNATIONAL Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the award dated 5th July, 2006 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 102/2006 whereunder the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent/workman by holding that the termination of his service by the petitioner/management was illegal being in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. After holding so, the Labour Court observed that in view of the fact that the respondent/workman had been out of service of the petitioner/management for four years and had worked only for one year, a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid by the petitioner/management to the respondent/workman.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned award on the ground that it was the respondent/workman who had abandoned the service and that the petitioner/management had not terminated the service of the respondent/workman. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the order dated 26th May, 2005 passed by the Labour Court wherein directions were given to the respondent/workman to report for duty, but he did not comply with the same. It is further stated that the petitioner/management has been victimized on account of the fact that its authorized representative stopped appearing in the matter without intimating the petitioner/management and as a result, the cross- examination of the respondent/workman was not conducted nor was any evidence led by the petitioner/management and its right to adduce evidence was closed, vide order dated 18.12.2005.

(3.) Having perused the impugned award, this Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity therein. The written statement filed by the petitioner/management was duly taken into consideration by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. In para 1 of the reply on merits, it was admitted by the petitioner/management that the respondent/workman had joined the management on 4.4.2001 and remained in service till 12.12.2002 and thereafter, he absented himself from service w.e.f. 13.12.2002 (wrongly typed as 13.12.2001). After taking note of the facts of the case as also perusing the written statement of the petitioner/ management, the Labour Court, held that the management failed to lead any evidence at all, to prove its plea of abandonment of service by the workman and that the termination of service of the respondent/workman on 12.12.2002 had gone unrebutted. Ultimately, the award has been passed against the petitioner/management keeping in view the admission on the part of the petitioner/management itself that the respondent/workman had rendered more than 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year and thus he was entitled to the benefits under Section 25F of the Act.