R HANUMANTA RAO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties 2 to 5 filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur claiming arrear salary and expenses as per the annexures made to the said application separately in respect of each of the said opp. parties. THE learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur registering the same as a Misc. Case No. 18 of 2002 allowed the said application by order dated 13.6.2003 ex parte. THE petitioners - management, being aggrieved by the said award, have preferred the present writpetition on the ground that the award has been passed behindthe back of the petitioners without affording opportunity ofhearing to them and rejecting the application filed by one ShriH.C. Dani to represent the management.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted thatthe opp. parties 2 to 5 are not entitled to get any amount fromthe company, but in the alternative, they are to pay back someamount in terms of the agreement entered into between them andthe company, as the opp. parties 2 to 4 have resigned and theopp. party no. 5 was terminated from service. It was furtherurged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the opp.parties 2 to 5 were engaged by the company to work asagents/sales representatives and they were required to show atargeted sale of Rs. 50,000/- each. On considering the sale madeby the opp. party no. 2, he was engaged as Area Sales Managerwith a target sale of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, whereas opp. parties 3 to 5were offered to be engaged as Field Sales Officers with a targetsale of Rs. 50,000/- each per month. The terms and conditions oftheir engagement were as enumerated in Annexures-1 and 1/A tothe writ petition. The petitioners have made several allegationsagainst the said opp. parties with regard to misconduct and misappropriation of company funds. It is averred in the writpetition that the opp. parties 2 to 5 suddenly disappeared fromtheir work from the month of January, 2002 and the opp. parties,2, 3 and 4 submitted their resignations in writing resigning fromthe work with effect from 6.2.2002. The opp. party no. 5 did notreport to work since the month of January, 2002 for whichnotices were issued to him by the petitioner no. 2 to report at theZonal Office at Cuttack, but he did not respond to the same. Itwas further found that he has played fraud on the company byproducing fraud T.A. Bills. As he did not report for work, themanagement by letter dated 23.3.2002 intimated him that hisservices have been terminated by advising him to return theoffice property worth Rs. 3,000/- along with the stock he hadreceived of a value of Rs. 13,037/- and to produce no duecertificate from all his stockists failing which steps would betaken to recover the amount.