PRADHAN Vs. KUMAR INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the award of the Labour Court dated 30.12.1996. By this award, the Labour Court has held and declared that the appropriate government has referred the dispute which was non-existent and non-est. The Labour Court dismissed the Reference.

(2.) The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The Petitioner was employed as a Chipper on a daily wage of Rs.60/- with Respondent No.1 from October 1992. He met with an accident on 8.4.1993 while on duty. He was paid medical benefit under the Employees State Insurance Act and a fitness certificate was issued to him on 1.2.1994 by the Doctor appointed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The petitioner reported for work on the next day but was not permitted to resume duty. He, therefore, lodged a complaint with the Government Labour Officer and also served a demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages on the Respondent on 17.3.1994. The dispute between the petitioner and his employer was admitted in conciliation. The conciliation proceedings resulted in the failure report being submitted to the appropriate government. A Reference was therefore, made for adjudication of the dispute before the Labour Court. After pleadings were completed and evidence was led, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award.

(3.) Although it is difficult to decipher exactly what the Labour Court wanted to say in the award, what can be gleaned from the award is that the findings of the Labour Court are: (i) that the dispute between the parties was non-existent because the employer had offered a job to the workman before the conciliation officer; (ii) that the petitioner workman refused to accept the job which was offered since he was offered the same with a contractor of the respondent employer; (iii) that the workman refused to accept the job offered by his employer because the employer refused to pay him backwages while offering to reinstate him. It is for these reasons that the Labour Court has held that the dispute is non-existent.