MAYA PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ANOOP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST writ petition is directed against award dated 24.11.1987 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No.36 of 1986. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of the petitioner employer terminating the services of its employee respondent No.1 in the first writ petition Anoop Kumar w.e.f. 02.09.1984 was valid or not. Labour Court held that termination order was not valid. Strangely enough the labour court held that even though domestic inquiry which preceded the termination was quite fair and the charges of misconduct were proved, however termination order was bad. The case of the employer was that the workman was absent from duty from 06.05.1984 without any application of leave and an undated application for leave was found in leave box on 19.05.1984 when charge-sheet was issued. This allegation was found correct and proved by the labour court in Para-10 of the award. The reason for seeking leave in the application stated by the petitioner was that he had got injured. This assertion was thoroughly disbelieved by the labour court. The labour court also accepted the case of the employer that on several earlier occasions the workman had absented from duty without leave and on every occasion he was pardoned on his promise and assurance to be careful in future. In spite of these findings the labour court held that as neither the workman had committed theft nor physically assaulted the employers, hence dismissal was too harsh. The award given by labour court is patently erroneous in law. After recording the finding of misconduct, there was absolutely no occasion to take lenient view vide AIR 2008 SC 99 "U.B. Gadhe Vs. G.M., Gujarat Ambuja Cement Private Ltd." and AIR 2006 SC 615 "L.I.C. Of India Vs. R. Dhandapani". Accordingly, first writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside. As far as the second writ petition is concerned, it is offshoot of the award challenged through the first writ petition. The allegation of petitioner employer was that on 21.06.1988 the workman along with his representative Sri Ravindra Srivastava came to the Chamber of Accountant of the petitioner employer and received Rs.5000/- in full and final satisfaction of the award, offered to resign and in fact tendered the resignation. Afterwards he resiled and stated that he was forced to resign and sign the receipt of Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an order dated 07.03.1989 directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman in pursuance of the award, which has been challenged through the second writ petition. Contents of Para-11 of writ petition dealing with acceptance of Rs.5000/- and resignation in the chamber of A.K. Mukarjee have been replied in Para-10 of the counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it is nowhere denied that the workman came to the chamber of Sri A.K. Mukharjee, accountant of the petitioner company along with Sri Ravindra Srivastava. Signatures on the receipt are admitted by the workman, however he asserts that it was a result of coercion. It has not been explained that what coercion was exercised by the employer due to which workman went to the chamber of Sri A.K. Mukharjee, accountant in the petitioner company. For want of specific denial, assertions in Para-11 of the writ petition will have to be taken as correct. In any case as the main award has been set aside hence there is no question of continuance of proceeding for its enforcement. Accordingly, the second writ petition is also allowed. Order dated 07.03.1989 is set aside. It is clarified that the amount of Rs.5000/- paid by the petitioner to the workman respondent shall not be refundable.