JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to challenge the Award, dtd. 14/10/2022 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurugram, whereby his claim raised under Sec. 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging the termination of services was decided against him.

(2.) Briefly the facts leading to the Writ Petition are that Petitioner joined the Respondent No.2-Company, namely, M/s Chetak Logistics Limited as Superintendent Grade-II, pursuant to the Letter of Appointment, dtd. 1/4/2004 (Ex.PW1/1) and he continued to discharge his duties sincerely till 1/6/2020, when he was removed from the service. The Petitioner visited the office of Respondent No.2-Company on various occasions with a request to allow him to join the services, but his request was not considered favourably, therefore, he served a Demand Notice dtd. 8/6/2020 (Annexure P2) and subsequent to it vide Letter, dtd. 11/6/2020 (Ex.PW1/4), his services were terminated illegally on the ground of his absence for the last two months. As per averments, the Conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner did not materialize and the matter reached before the Labour Court through reference bearing No.PR/211/21. The notice was issued to Respondent No.2-Management, but despite service none appeared on its behalf, therefore, Respondent No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide Order, dtd. 30/9/2021. Thereafter, the Petitioner adduced his evidence and considering the same, the Labour Court, Gurugram dismissed his claim through impugned Order, dtd. 14/10/2022. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the claim by Workman was not contested by the Management despite effective service and the Petitioner had adduced sufficient documentary evidence to prove his illegal removal from service in violation of the mandatory provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but ignoring the said evidence, the Labour Court decided the reference against him. He submits that the Petitioner worked for a long period with the Respondent No.2-Company w.e.f April, 2004 till June, 2020 and his nature of work as well as length of service is proved. According to him, the impugned Award is against the law and evidence on the record, therefore, the interference is warranted by this Court by exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India.