PARSHURAM SHAH Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the award dated 29th May, 2006 passed by the Labour Court whereunder the issue as to whether the petitioner workman had voluntarily left the services without information w.e.f. 13th February, 2003 and had abandoned his services, was held in favour of the respondent management and it was further held that the services of the petitioner workman had not been terminated by the respondent management in any manner. Thus a no relief award was passed against the petitioner workman.

(2.) Facts of the case as set up by the petitioner workman in his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court are that the petitioner workman was appointed with the respondent management w.e.f. October, 1998 as a Security Guard on last drawn wages of Rs. 3,250/- per month. It is stated that on making certain demands like appointment letter, leave book, weekly and annual leave overtime, wage increment etc., the respondent management got annoyed with him, and terminated his services w.e.f. 13th February, 2003 without giving him any notice or charge sheet and also without giving him salary for the period from 1st February, 2003 to 12th February, 2003. Thereafter the petitioner workman served the respondent management with a demand notice dated 11th March, 2003, but the same was not replied to by the respondent management. This was followed by conciliation proceedings, on failure of which the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. In its written statement, among other contentions, the respondent management raised an objection about the locus standi of the Union to raise the dispute and on merits it was stated that the petitioner had left the services of the management voluntarily, without any information w.e.f. 13th February, 2003. It was stated that the petitioner was deputed as a Security Guard at the Office of a client for providing security services and on 12.02.2003, the respondent received a complaint against the petitioner from the said client who asked for a replacement. As a result, the respondent recalled the petitioner to its office for further posting and deputed him to join duty at the office of another client, but the petitioner did not report at all for duty. The petitioner workman filed his rejoinder and based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) Thereafter arguments were addressed and evidence was recorded on behalf of both the parties, and after considering the same, the Labour Court answered the first issue against the respondent management and in favour of the petitioner workman. However, the second issue was decided in favour of the respondent management and on the third issue, it was held that the respondent management had not terminated the services of the workman in any manner. It is the aforesaid award that has been assailed in the present proceedings by the petitioner workman.