BASANT RUBBER FACTORY LTD Vs. K RAMCHANDRAM GOUNDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the Judgment and Award dated 2-5-2001, passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDA) No. 1072 of 1995. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and payment of back wages. The impugned Award is challenged on the ground that the finding about the admission of the petitioner regarding absence of any offer being made to join the duties is contrary to the materials on record, and secondly, that the impugned Award has been passed ignoring the documentary evidence disclosing such offers having been made on the part of the petitioner and there being consistent failure on the part of the respondent to avail the opportunity given by the petitioner to the respondent to join to the duties. In that connection, reliance is also placed in the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (Sonal Garments v. Trimbak Shankar Karve), reported in 2002 (6) Bom. C. R. 529 : 2002 (III) C. L. R. 488 as well as an unreported decision in the matter of (Raju Sankar Poojary v. Chembur Warehouse company and another), in Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2001, delivered on 2-7-2003 reported in 2004 (1) Bom. C. R. (O. O. C. J.)160. The impugned Award, however, is sought to be justified contending that there was no cogent material placed on record disclosing any efforts on the part of the petitioner to permit the respondent to join to the services and on the contrary, the materials on record being disclosing that the respondent was prohibited from joining the services.

(3.) ON perusal of the impugned Award, it apparently discloses that the labour Court on the ground of admission on the part of the petitioner that it had never asked the second respondent to resume to his duties after having remained absent, and secondly, that the conciliation report does not refer to any letter by the petitioner to the respondent asking the respondent to join to his duties, the view taken by the Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence is that the respondent was not allowed to join to his duties without any justification and without taking proper recourse to the procedure of law for terminating the services of the employee and that therefore the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent.