M/S. KHEMKA CONTAINERS LTD., FARIDABAD Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-2, FARIDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner -employer challenging the award dated 11.9.98, copy annexure P -8 whereby the workman (respondent No. 2) was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 was employed by the petitioner on 13.5.1988. He worked with the petitioner upto 5.10.1990. Case of the petitioner is that the workman started remaining absent from duty after that date while the case of the workman is that his services had been terminated. Conciliation proceedings started after the demand notices was served but the said proceedings failed. The matter was consequently referred to the Labour Court which passed the impugned award. The demand notice is dated 16.10.1990, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P -4. This circumstance i.e., the demand notice had been served within a very short time is in favour of the workman. The petitioner has tried to establish from various letters written to the workman that he was not ready and willing to report for duty whereas on the other hand the stand of the workman is that he was always ready and willing to join the job. Be that as it may, during the conciliation proceedings, statements of the workman and a representative of the management were recorded by the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer, Ballabgarh, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P -7. The respondent -workman stated in his statement before the Conciliation Officer that his services were terminated by the management on 5.10.1990 without any reasons and he be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. Statement of the Management was that they were ready to take the workman on duty and he be directed to do so. It is silent as regards continuity of service and back wages,

(3.) AS stated earlier, the circumstance that the demand notice was served within a very short time of the date of termination, goes in favour of the respondent's contention. Had the workman abandoned the job of his own he would not have served a prompt demand notice. I, therefore, do not find it proper to interfere with the observations of the Labour Court on this issue.