PRAVEEN SINGH KANYAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) By this petition, Petitioner challenges the Award dtd. 3/9/2018 passed by the 1st Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA-D) No. 1 of 2015. By the impugned Award, Labour Court has answered the Reference relating to termination of services of Petitioner in negative and has directed the Respondent-Employer to pay legal dues to the Petitioner in accordance with provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).

(3.) Petitioner is ex-serviceman having retired from Indian Army after rendering services of 15 years. He came to be appointed in M/s. Edmacut (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.-Respondent No. 3 on 1/4/1998 on the post of 'Accountant-Cum-Clerk'. It is Petitioner's case that he was not paid increment due to him in the year 2012. He lodged complaint with Respondent No. 3. It is Petitioner's case that Respondent No. 3 deputed one Mr. Pradeep for threatening and pressurizing the Petitioner to resign for having raised the issue of non-payment of increment. Respondent No. 3 began shifting its machinery from Andheri factory to another location. Respondent No. 3 thereafter terminated services of the Petitioner by Order dtd. 24/11/2012. It is Petitioner's case that no reasons were assigned nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to Petitioner while illegally terminating his services on 24/11/2012. He protested against the termination by submitting letter dtd. 8/8/2013. He approached Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai by submitting representation dtd. 3/9/2013. The case was taken for conciliation. After submission of failure report, the appropriate government made a Reference to the Labour Court, Mumbai for adjudication of dispute relating to Petitioner's termination. Petitioner filed his Statement of Claim. Respondent No. 3 filed Written Statement and offered to reinstate Respondent at its premises at Bhayandar. Respondent No. 3 also raised contention of gainful employment of Petitioner. Petitioner filed Affidavit to deal with the contention of gainful employment. About offer of reinstatement, Petitioner stated that such an offer was never made in writing to the Petitioner. Respondent No. 3 filed application once again reiterating the offer for resumption of duties by Petitioner at Bhayandar (E.) factory. Both the sides led evidence in respect of their respective cases. The Labour Court delivered Award dtd. 3/9/2018 holding that services of the Petitioner were not illegally terminated. The Reference was therefore answered in negative. Respondent No. 3 is however directed to pay to the Petitioner legal dues offered at the time of shifting of machinery within 01 month of the Award. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dtd. 3/9/2018 and has filed the present petition.