DARSHAN SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed with M/s. Engineering and Consultants, 200 H.M.T. Ancillary Unit, Panchkula. He claims that his services had been terminated by the respondent with effect from June 26, 1984 without assigning "any reason and without even providing" any written order. He served a demand notice. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court, Ambala. The respondent contested the case and contended that the workman had voluntarily resigned his job and left the service after receiving his wages, bonus and other dues. The Labour Court found that it is the workman himself "who voluntarily quit the job. The case of the workman that his services were dispensed with is not at all convincing." Accordingly it rejected the claim of the workman. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the workman has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. U.S. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated as it is based on misreading of evidence. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has submitted that the imputed award is in strict conformity with the evidence on record.

(3.) In order to substantiate his contention, Mr. Sahni has pointed out that while considering Issue No. 1 the learned Labour Court has referred to Ex. M-2 as an application for experience certificate. He has further pointed out that there was no ostensible reason for the workman to resign and no evidence with regard to any family circumstances having been brought on the record, the decision is vitiated. He has further contended that the conciliation proceedings have been wrongly treated as an order. I do not find day merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel. It is no doubt correct that while noticing the evidence led the parties in support of Issue No. 1 the court has inter alia observed that "thereafter workman appeared on 29th June, 1984 (and) submitted an application Ex. M-2 for experience certificate." However, while noticing the contents of Ex. M-2 the Court has referred to the actual document. The facts, as noted by the learned Court are evidently borne out from a copy of this document produced by the petitioner with the writ petition as Annexure P-9/1. Consequently, no infirmity can be found with the order on this account. Equally untenable is the plea that the 'family circumstances' have not been delineated by the Labour Court or that the record of the conciliation proceedings (Ex. M-3) has been wrongly treated as an order. Actually, there are three facts which clearly negatived the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is evident from the record that the petitioner had accepted the payment of dues without any protest. At that time, it had been recorded by Mr. Dinesh Arora, who is a partner in the firm, that the workman had resigned and taken his dues. This fact was recorded on the attendance register. Secondly, the workman had himself stated that "demand notice dated 22.8.1984 which is on the record is not mine." It was only when a hint was given by his authorised representative that the workman had owned the demand notice. Thirdly, the workman did not appear even before the conciliation officer in spite of being called. A positive findings in this behalf has been recorded by the Labour Court. It is also worthy of notice that initially the workman had made some complaint to the police. However, at a later stage he had stated that "the application which has been given was written by Abhai Singh and I was only made to sign I do not want any legal action on the application... This is evident from the perusal of document Ex. MCI, a copy of which has been produced as Annex P-9/1 with the writ petition. Further more, on a perusal of the initial demand notice (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition), it appears that initially the workman had only stated that the termination of his service was unjustified and illegal. However, in the statement of the claim filed on his behalf it was sought to be suggested that the services were terminated to victimise him for his trade union activities. The contents of the statement of claim have been verified by the representatives of the workman and not by the petitioner himself. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. In any case, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court is not hearing an appeal and cannot upset the findings of fact unless these are found to be perverse or based on no evidence. Such is not the situation in the present case.