SURESH KUMAR Vs. MANAGEMENT OF MONSANTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against a no relief award dated 27th November, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, whereunder it was held that the petitioner had himself resigned from his job and had received his full and final payment from the respondent management.

(2.) In a nutshell, facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent management as a Peon in January, 1989 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 4,675/- p.m. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent management kept the petitioner workman as a temporary/casual hand for almost five years in order to deny him the benefits of a permanent workman and that he was confirmed in service only on 1st May, 1994 after repeated demands, that the respondent management took the signature of the petitioner workman on a number of blank papers and receipts, and handed over a letter to him on 30th September, 1997 directing him to join the respondent management's office at Madras, which according to the petitioner workman, did not exist at all. However, the petitioner workman requested the respondent management to let him join the Madras office after 5-6 months and continued to work at Delhi till April 1998. It is also alleged that the workman was not paid his wages from December, 1997 to April, 1998, and that he went on leave of 3 months after getting the same sanctioned, to visit his wife who was ill; that he was forced to extend his leave till 13th September, 1998 and resumed duties on the said date. However, it is alleged that on 18th September, 1998, the workman was handed over a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.39,724/- and the respondent management also got some papers signed by him claiming that the amount was being paid to him on account of arrears of salary. The case put forward by the petitioner workman is that when he reported for duty on 19th September, 1998, he was not allowed to join, and it was only in December, 1998 that he got to know that his services had been terminated.

(3.) Pursuant to the said termination of his service, the petitioner served the respondent management with a legal notice dated 7th January, 1999 and not receiving any reply to the same, a dispute was raised. Thereafter conciliations proceedings followed, but on the failure of the same, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in the following terms of reference: