PRADIPAN CORPORATION Vs. VIVEKANAND JOHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition, whereby, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Valsad, rendered in Reference (LCV) No. 604 of 1996, Dated : 12.08.2004, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the reference in favour of the respondent ­ workman.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the case of the respondent ­ workman before the Labour Court was that he was working with the petitioner as a helper. It was, further, the case of the respondent that, though, he was a regular employee of the petitioner, the proprietor of the company terminated his services orally, on 17.08.1987, without issuance of any notice or payment of notice pay etc.. He, therefore, raised an industrial dispute by filing the reference, as stated herein above, wherein, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) INSOFAR as the aspect of resignation from the service by the respondent is concerned, the respondent has clearly stated in his Statement of Claim that his services were terminated by Mr. Maunesh Patel by oral order and the aforesaid aspect is not controverted by the petitioner - company during cross-examination of the respondent. The Labour Court also recorded that on termination of his service, the respondent had sent a letter to the petitioner through R.P.A.D., which was received by it on 23.08.1987, whereas, the letters dated : 21.08.1987 and 10.09.1987, which are claimed to be written by the petitioner to the respondent, calling him to report for work, are concerned, the petitioner failed to prove that the same were received by the respondent. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Labour Court has rightly not believed the case of the petitioner that respondent voluntarily stopped reporting for duty.