LABDDHI POLY PLAST ENGINEERS Vs. ASWINKUMAR MOHANLAL GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Applications challenge the judgment and award dtd. 22/5/2007 in Reference (LCB) No.121 of 2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch whereby the respondent workman has been reinstated along with 15% back wages.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the Special Civil Applications are as follows:-

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the petitioner company submitted that the petitioner company had produced attendance registers before the learned Labour Court to show that during the period from October-1998 to December-2000, the respondent workman had joined his duties as a Manager therefore, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain present reference. It was further submitted that the respondent workman has no where produced anything on record to show that he was working with the petitioner company since the year 1990 and therefore, it was erroneous to hold that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner company since the year 1990 till his termination. It was submitted that the respondent workman was having technical knowledge and was getting monthly salary of Rs.4,600.00 and was working in management cadre. From the attendance registers produced on record, it can be seen that there are only 4 to 6 employees working with the petitioner company and not being a big unit, the Manager was required to do administrative as well as supervisory work and the present respondent was doing both these duties since he was working as a Manager. It is further the case of the petitioner company that the respondent workman himself stopped attending the work as he had started working independently and therefore, there was no order of termination in case of the respondent workman. It was further submitted that since the respondent workman had on his own stopped reporting for work and his services were not terminated by the petitioner company therefore, he was not entitled to any back wages. It was also submitted that after passing the award, the petitioner company had requested the respondent workman to report for work, however, the respondent workman did not report for work but was only interested in getting his back wages. The conduct and act of the respondent workman shows that he was interested in monetary benefits rather than working with the petitioner company. It was finally submitted that the impugned judgment and award of the learned Labour Court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.