MADHURI CHANDULAL LAKHANI Vs. PRASHANT SHRIPAD SATPUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - employer questions the award dated 2 September 2006 made by the Tenth Labour Court at Mumbai awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages. The respondent - Prashant was working as a photo printer with the employer. In the month of December 2000, Prashant met with an accident and had to be admitted in the hospital for treatment. It is Prashant's case that he informed the employer about the accident and his inability to report for work until he recovers from illness. The employer however contends that there was no intimation. On 14 June 2001, Prashant caused a demand for reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service with effect from 24 December 2000 to be served upon the employer. It is the case of the employer that they were surprised to receive the demand letter dated 14 June 2001, nevertheless, they immediately offered reinstatement to Prashant, he declined, as by then he had already secured alternate employment.

(2.) In the conciliation proceedings which followed, the employer appeared on 20 July 2001 and once again offered to reinstate Prashant. However, Prashant refused to accept reinstatement, upon the spacious plea that back-wages for the period between 24 December 2000 to 20 July 2001 i.e. for a period of about seven months were not offered by the employer. The conciliation proceedings, ultimately ended in a failure and the appropriate Government made a Reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("said Act"), resulting in the impugned award.

(3.) Heard Mr. A.S. Peerzada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service neither did Prashant nor any Advocate on his behalf, put appearance.