NARESH DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 19.1.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Panipat, whereby an application filed by petitioner Sultan Singh (since deceased) under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') seeking subsistence allowance for the period April, 1997 to May, 2003 has been declined.

(2.) Mr.Ramesh Goyat, Advocate appearing for the legal representatives of deceased Sultan Singh, would argue that the Labour Court has dismissed the application seeking subsistence allowance by recording a finding that there was no relationship of employee-employer between the workman and respondent- Management as his services had been terminated prior to 7.1.1998. Learned counsel would argue that such findings cannot be sustained as the respondent-Management had failed to produce any termination order or even a show cause notice in relation thereto. It has further been argued that the relevant record having not been produced, it was imperative upon the Labour Court to have drawn an adverse inference against the Management and in favour of the workman. Further submission has been raised that vide order, dated 30.10.2002, passed by the Labour Court, Panipat, an application seeking subsistence allowance moved by the workman for the period upto March, 1997 had already been allowed and such aspect has been overlooked.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.RK Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Management, would submit that services of Sultan Singh had been terminated by the respondent-Society prior to 7.1.1998 and as such, claim as regards subsistence allowance for the period April, 1997 to May, 2003 has been rightfully declined by the Labour Court.