NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the award of the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur passed in Industrial Dispute No. 58 of 1997. The following matter was referred by the Central Government to the said Tribunal -cum -Labour Court of adjudication :

(2.) AFTER issuance of notice, the concerned workman has filed his written statement stating therein that he was engaged as a water boy cum messenger by the employer and was asked to work at Kalyanpur Branch of the Bank. He joined on 31st January, 1984. Later on by the order of the Chairman of the Bank, he was asked to report for duty at Head Office. It is pertinent to note that date of this instruction as has been given was not mentioned in the pleadings. It is further alleged by the workman that he joined at Head Office on 25th November, 1984 and worked there up to 25th August, 1985, When his services were brought to an end by oral order. It is further stated that when the concerned workman was not paid salary for the period 25th November, 1984 and 25th August, 1985, he filed a claim petition for payment of wages for aforesaid period before the Payment of Wages Authority and the said authority registered the case as C.P.W. No. 73 of 1985 and decided the same vide its order dated 17th July, 1987 in favour of the concerned workman and direction was issued to the employer to pay wages of the concerned workman with effect from 25th November, 1984 to 25th August, 1985 amounting to Rs. 1,920 towards salary, Rs. 25 towards damages and Rs. 100 towards costs within 30 days. The said order has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. This order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority has not been challenged by the employer as there is nothing on record to show that it has been challenged. Thus, this order has become final. The employer have put up defence before the Tribunal that the concerned workman has not worked from 31st January, 1984 and he applied for leave on 27th March, 1984 due to illness and thereafter did not join at all. Ultimately, he reported for duty on 14th August, 1984 at Sojana Branch. It is denied that at any stage Chairman had instructed the concerned workman to join at Head Office. The concerned workman after joining on 14th August, 1984 did not turn up for duty after 31st October, 1984. Thus, it is a case of abandonment on the part of the concerned workman and he was not worked at all after 31st October, 1984.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the Labour Court after recording the aforesaid finding have given award that in fact there had been no termination of service instead the concerned workman had left the job. This award of the Labour Court is in the teeth of the documentary evidence available on record with the order of Payment of Wages Authority and even if the case set up by the employer is taken to be correct that the concerned workman has abandoned, then also his services cannot be terminated in the manner as it has been done without complying with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act.