BASHIRMIYA NAJJUMIYA MALIK Vs. KAYMIG AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by award dated 17.5.2002 passed by the f Labour Court, in reference (LCS) No. 292 of 87, the petitioner has approached this Court. By the said award dated 17.5.2002 the Labour Court has rejected the reference and has declined to grant relief of reinstatement and/or back wages as prayed for by the petitioner herein.

(2.) THE respondent herein opposed the said reference by filing written statement disputing the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondent herein examined witnesses in support of its case that it was the petitioner, who had on his own volition, stopped reporting for work w.e.f. 18.1.1987 and that the respondent had not terminated him. The respondent also claimed that the petitioner had from the respondent withdrawn, as advance, about Rs. 5600/ - which also have remained unpaid and despite the fact that the respondent made requests to the petitioner to resume work, the petitioner had not reported for work and that therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the relief prayed for by him.

(3.) MR . Vakil for the respondent submitted that it is the petitioner who stopped reporting for work from 18.1.1987 and then on 31.8.1987 alleged that his service was terminated w.e.f. 1.5.1987. Mr. Vakil submitted the fact that after contending in his statement of claim that his service was terminated w.e.f. the petitioner gave application Exh. 121 in October, 2001 claiming that actually due to inadvertent mistake the date of termination was mentioned as 5.1987 but in fact he was terminated w.e.f. 19.1.1987 and therefore, he may be permitted to amend the statement of claim so as to correct the date 1.5.1987 as Mr. Vakil submitted that the very fact that the said application Exh.121 dated 12.10.2001 came to be preferred after delay of 14 years and that too after certain evidence was recorded, goes to show that the petitioner has been trying to correct the facts and mislead the Court. Mr. Vakil submitted that the said application was rightly rejected and the Labour Court is right and justified in holding that the petitioner himself is not clear about his case and what he wants to prove before the Court as regards his termination. Mr. Vakil, besides his this submission, vehemently opposed the petition on the ground of delay and submitted that the petitioner has challenged the impugned award after delay of 6 years and the subject petition is not maintainable on that ground alone. In support of his submission, Mr. Vakil relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1998 (6) SCC 549, 1995 SC 1551, 2000 (6) SCC 1581 and 2007 (2) SCC 112.