LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-644

G.KUPPUSAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT

Decided On January 02, 2019
G.Kuppusamy Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the award, dated 01.11.2010 made in ID.No.171 of 2006, on the file of the 1st Respondent and to direct the 2nd Respondent Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he had joined the 2nd Respondent Management as a permanent employee on 22.10.2002 and he had performed his duties without any blemishes and his last drawn salary was Rs.2,900/-. The Petitioner did not report for duty from 5.01.2006 to 19.01.2006 and he went to the factory to resume his work on 20.01.2006 along with the medical certificate for his absence. But, the 2nd Respondent Management did not allow him to resume his work and asked him to come on 27.01.2006 and paid the bonus to him and obtained his signature in eight papers. Since he was not reinstated in service, in spite of his several requests, he had made an application on 11.3.2006 to the 2nd Respondent Management. Thereafter, he had raised an industrial dispute before the 1st Respondent in ID.No.171 of 2006 to direct the 2nd Respondent Management to reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(3.) Before the 1st Respondent / Labour Court, the 2nd Respondent management, by filing a written statement, had contended that the Petitioner had sent a resignation letter and pursuant to the same, 12(3) settlement was signed by the Petitioner before the Labour Officer on 02.02.2006 and pursuant to such settlement, the Petitioner had received a sum of Rs.16,000/- under the receipt dated 02.02.2006 before the Labour Officer and hence, the Petitioner had forfeited his right to re-employment and other benefits. The Petitioner had also agreed not to raise any dispute before any court as per the said settlement dated 2.2.2006 before the Labour Officer and hence, the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable.