(1.) The management has filed this writ petition against the award dated July 21, 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court-3, Faridabad. Reference No. 381 of 2003 had been answered in favour of the workman and reinstatement with continuity of service has followed. But he has been granted only 10% of the back wages.
(2.) The respondent workman is not aggrieved by the award of 10% back wages since he has not challenged the award. His was retrenched on January 28, 2003 after putting in about two years and ten months of service. Indisputably, the termination was caused without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as neither notice nor wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid at the time of termination of services. The defence of the management was that the petitioner had resigned from service but they did not produce the resignation letter in evidence on the pretext that in the meantime, the resignation letter lying in an office file was lost by termites. The stand in the alternative was that the workman had abandoned his services. This version has not found favour with the Labour Court for good and sufficient reason. The court a quo has properly based its conclusions after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties on the file. If the defence of the management is not truthful then it cannot take any advantage of the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The theory of resignation and abandonment at the same breath are destructive of each other and cannot be reconciled. As far as non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 25-F is concerned it would profit to remember the words of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., 1979 2 SCC 80 which are:
(3.) In Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003 4 SCC 619 the Supreme Court observed:-