JAGATPAL DHURIA Vs. MADHAV CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge an Award of the Labour Court at Mumbai in a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned Award, the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner who had been employed by the first respondent from 1972 until June, 1982 came to be terminated unlawfully without following the procedure established under the law. Neither was any departmental enquiry held, nor was the petitioner paid any retrenchment compensation before his services came to be dispensed with. The Labour Court rejected the defence put forth on behalf of the employer that the petitioner had abandoned service. However, the Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner would in the circumstances of the present case not be entitled to reinstatement and, consequently a direction has been issued to pay to the petitioner compensation in the amount of Rs. 35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

(2.) THE Award of the Labour Court in so far as it declines the relief of reinstatement with back wages, is sought to be impugned in these proceedings under Article 226.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was originally appointed by the first respondent in its establishment at Tamarind Lane, Mumbai, on an initial salary of Rs. 100/- per month. He worked with the first respondent until January, 1978. Thereafter, he was transferred to the second respondent which is an Associate group company of the employer. It was the case of the workman that since June 1978 he was working in the godown of the company at Goregaon and that he was required to do clerical work of preparing challans and writing of the inward and outward registers. The last drawn salary of the workman in April, 1982 was Rs. 430/- per month. On 10th May, 1982 the workman proceeded on leave which was duly sanctioned by the employer. He was on leave until 22nd May, 1982. On 23rd May, 1982 the workman reported back for work. Thereafter, after he rendered service of about nine days, his services were dispensed with on 1st June, 1992 without any notice.