RAJESHWAR KUMAR Vs. NEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 9251/2009 (Exemption) in WP (C) No. 10499/2009 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. WP (C) No. 10499/2009 and CM No. 9250/2009 (for stay) This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein)is directed against an award dated 28. 04. 2003 passed by Mr. M. K. Gupta, then presiding Officer Labour Court IX, Delhi directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with 50% back wages.

(2.) HEARD.

(3.) THE workman (respondent No. 1 herein) was appointed as Pattern Master by the petitioner in March, 1991 at a salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month. His services were terminated w. e. f. 12. 11. 1996. Aggrieved by his termination, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The workman filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court in which he alleged termination of his services by the management (the petitioner herein) w. e. f. 12. 11. 1996. However, the petitioner in its written statement filed before the labour Court took a plea that the workman had abandoned its service of his own w. e. f. 14. 11. 1996. The issue for adjudication in the reference before the labour Court was whether the workman had abandoned the services of the petitioner of his own or was he terminated by the petitioner management? The labour Court gave opportunity to both the parties to prove their respective stands but Mr. Anil Kumar Singhal, authorized representative of the petitioner management withdrew himself from the proceedings on 23. 04. 2003 and for that reason, the management was proceeded ex-parte by the Labour Court on that day. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence produced by the workman before it passed the impugned award directing reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages except full back wages for the period from 01. 10. 1996 to 12. 11. 1996. The period for which full back wages were awarded by the Labour Court is the period for which the workman had actually worked with the petitioner management and was not paid his salary by the management. This point that he was not paid his salary for the period from 01. 10. 1996 to 12. 11. 1996 has been proved by the workman before the Labour Court by proving that the management had given a cheque towards wages for the aforesaid period which was dishonoured when presented for encashment.