COMPETITION PRINTING PRESS Vs. SHRJU JAIPRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the respondent workman, who indeed was not at all interested in reinstatement but still continued to carry on this extremely vexatious litigation obviously to extract or knock out some money from the employer.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent workman joined the employment on and from 1-3-1986. Soon thereafter on and from 10-11-1989 he started remaining absent without leave or permission. It appears that on 16-11-1989 he approached the Government Labour Officer to lodge a complaint that the petitioner employer had illegally and wrongfully terminated his service with effect from 10-11-1989. It further appears that the Government Labour Officer called both the parties on 29-11-1989 to resolve their dispute if, but he could not do so. On that date, the petitioner attended the office of the Government Labour Officer and submitted that the workman himself was remaining absent and that he was never terminated from employment and that he could report for work with continuity of service. It is borne out from the record that the workman refused to get reinstated with continuity of service but insisted for backwages from 10-11-1989 to 29-11-1989. It appears that the petitioner employer was not willing to pay the aforesaid amount of backwages on the ground that the petitioner had not terminated the services of the workman and therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay any so called backwages. It further appears that the workman pursued the litigation by submitting his formal demand for reinstatement and full backwages. It further appears from the record that the petitioner employer had promptly addressed two letters on 19-12-1989 and 28-12-1989 calling upon the workman to resume his duties if he was really interested in employment. It appears that there was absolutely no response from the workman and did not report for duty. The dispute rolled further in the conciliation proceedings. Even during the conciliation proceedings the petitioner employer filed a letter on 21-2-1990 setting out all the facts which transpired there before. These were the conciliation proceedings under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, wherein the petitioner employer repeated his stand that the employment of the workman was not terminated by the petitioner employer and that the workman started remaining absent and that he never joined or came back inspite of umpteen number of offers made to him to come back and attend the employment. Inspite of the best efforts made by the Officers it appears that the respondent workman was unwilling to join the duty without backwages. The Government of Maharashtra referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court after getting the failure report from the Conciliation Officer under section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946.

(3.) EVEN before the Labour Court in reply to the statement of claim filed by the respondent workman, the petitioner employer filed its written statement setting out all the facts including the offer of reinstatement without backwages. Even before the Labour Court there was no response from the workman. He never expressed his willingness to join the employment. The Labour Court recorded the evidence of the workman. The petitioner employer thought it proper not to enter into witness box in view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record of the Labour Court.