VARDHMAN TEXTILE Vs. PREMJIBHAI MAVJIBHAI THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal (IC) No. 30 of 2006 confirming the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in T Application No. 322 of 1992 whereby the petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent in service with 30 % backwages.

(2.) The respondent has joined the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.1990. The respondent voluntarily left the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.1992. Since the respondent had voluntarily left the services of the petitioner without any intimation, the petitioner issued UPC notices on 06.03.1992 and 15.03.1992 calling upon the respondent to remain present. The respondent thereafter was issued RPAD letter by the petitioner on 23.03.1992 inter alia calling upon to resume duty. It was also stated in the said notice that if the respondent is not ready and willing to join the services of the petitioner, then he may collect his dues. The said notice was refused by the respondent. Inspite of the letters written to the respondent, he did not remain present in the petitioner company. Thereafter, on 25.04.1992, the respondent came at the company premises and accepted all his dues and also made writing to the said effect. The respondent was paid Rs.5000/- by way full and final settlement of the dues of the respondent. After having taken all his dues and after having abandoned the services of the petitioner, respondent approached the Labour Court by way of T Application being T Application No. 322 of 1992 wherein the Labour Court vide order dated 31.03.2006 directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with 30% backwages. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Industrial Court being Appeal No. (IC) No. 30 of 2006. The Industrial Court rejected the appeal of the petitioner by its order 27.02.2009 and confirmed the order of the Labour Court. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that in spite of the three letters issued to the respondent for resuming his duty, he has not resumed and pursuant to his resignation letter, he was relieved and he was paid Rs. 5000/- by way full and final settlement of the dues on 25.04.1992.