AMRESH KUMAR Vs. SHRI HARI OVERSEAS (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner vide the present petition assails the impugned award dated 02.08.2014 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX in ID No.12/2013 vide which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner herein directly under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the management of M/s Hari Overseas (P) Limited vide which it was held that the petitioner herein was not entitled to any relief in as much as he was not a 'workman' within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was also held vide the impugned award that the petitioner had also abandoned the services of the respondent of his own and that the services of the respondent had not been terminated by the management illegally.

(2.) The contentions raised by the petitioner through his claim before the learned Labour Court-IX were to the effect that he was appointed as Senior Executive Accounts with the management from 12.12.2011 and had been working sincerely and honestly and his last drawn salary was Rs.23,000/- per month and that the services of the 'workman' were illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management on 15.06.2012 without any notice and that the management also did not pay the salary of the month of June 2012, bonus and other service benefits to the 'workman. The petitioner had also stated that after his illegal termination, he had served a legal notice to the management on 22.06.2012 through speed post and courier but the respondent did not comply with the said notice and rather replied falsely vide a reply dated 27.06.2012. As per the said reply of the respondent, it was stated that the petitioner had been continuously absent for a period of seven days without leave and thus, in terms of Clause 11 of his appointment letter, his services were terminated. Clause 11 of the appointment letter dated 12.12.2011 was stated through the reply dated 27.06.2012 of the respondent which read to the effect:-

(3.) During the course of conciliation proceedings, no settlement having been arrived at, a failure report was submitted whereafter the petitioner filed the claim directly in Court seeking adjudication submitting to the effect that despite best efforts he was unemployed and that the respondent be directed to be reinstated with full back wages.