NOBLE PAINTS PRIVATE LTD Vs. ASHOK TUKARAM SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) ON a reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court, by an order dated 4th January, 2003, directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity and full back wages. The employer is before the Court in these proceedings.

(3.) THE respondent was appointed as a Chemist by the petitioner by a letter dated 1/06/1995. The contention of the respondent before the Labour Court was that on 1/07/1997, he reported for work but, the Security guard did not allow him to enter the premises. From the evidence of the respondent, it would appear that on 29/06/1997, while the respondent was on duty, there was an altercation with the Supervisor in regard to the decision of the employer to treat the leave of the respondent between 2 4/04/1997 and 15/05/1997 as leave without pay. Be that as it may, the case of the respondent was that on and from 1/07/1997, he was prevented from entering the premises of the petitioner and that there was consequently a termination of his services. Immediately thereafter, on 17/07/1997, a letter of demand was addressed on behalf of the respondent to the petitioner making a grievance of the fact that the services of the respondent, who had been engaged continuously as a Chemist for over four years, had been terminated orally without notice and without valid reason. No disciplinary enquiry had been held. A demand for reinstatement together with back wages was accordingly raised. The petitioner waited to forward its response for nearly two months thereafter and in its letter dated 5/09/1997, purported to contend that the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent between 26th April and 18th May, 1997 and on on certain dates thereafter. Thereafter, it was claimed that it was the respondent who had abandoned service and terminated the contract of employment; that, there was no termination by the employer and it was, on the contrary, an abandonment of service by the respondent. The demand for reinstatement with back wages was, therefore, rejected. Conciliation proceedings thereafter took place before the deputy Commissioner of Labour. The petitioner remained absent in the Conciliation proceedings. Upon a failure report, there was a reference to adjudication in which, as already noted, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and continuity of service.