KAMLESH K NABOJYA Vs. DIAMOND CUTTING FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who is in person, has challenged the Award of the Labour Court in sofar as it grants reinstatement and full back wages only til! November 1994. The case of the workman is that his services had been wrongfully terminated by the first Respondent on 30th April 1994. He was drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 1,500/ - per month when his services were wrongfully terminated. The Petitioner has stated that he was informed on 30th April 1994 after having worked for six years with the first Respondent that his services were no longer required. It appears that this was as a result of the workers asking for increase in wages. According to the Petitioner, he was abused and was threatened with dire consequences if he came to work on the next day. The Petitioner, therefore, raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court at Mumbai. A Written Statement was filed before the Labour Court by the Respondent contending that the Petitioner had left the services of his own accord and that there is no question of termination of his services. It has also contended in the Written Statement that parties have entered into a settlement on 5th November 1994 in the presence of the General Secretary of the Union under which certain amounts were paid to the Petitioner. Evidence of the Petitioner was led before the Labour Court. The Proprietor of the first Respondent examined himself as well as one other witness.

(2.) THE Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led before it has held that the termination of service of the Petitioner was illegal without following the procedure laid down under section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court disbelieved the evidence of the first Respondent that there was any settlement under which the Petitioner had either left the services or that he had been paid any amounts pursuant to the settlement. The Labour Court has observed that the Petitioner was entitled to reinstatement as a consequence of his termination order being set side. However, on the basis of a mere statement from the Proprietor of the first Respondent, the Labour Court held that the concern was closed from December 1994 and, therefore, has granted reinstatement upto December 1994 and wages upto November 1994.

(3.) HENCE , I pass the following order : (a) Writ Petition allowed since there is no closure of the first Respondent firm. The Award of the Labour Court is set aside partly. (b) The Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full backwages from 30th April 1994 i.e. on the date of his services were wrongfully terminated.