SATYAWAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) whereby the Labour Court declined the reference by rendering findings on issue No.1 against the workman. In other words, issue No.2 was treated as preliminary and it was found vide order dated 8.6.2011 Annexure R-2/2 that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer viz-a-viz the charges levelled against the workman have been duly proved. Similarly it has been found that the Management did not resort to unfair labour practice, therefore, it was not a case of termination but a case of absenteeism.

(2.) Mr. Ramesh Goyat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined Management on 10.3.1995 as unskilled labourer and his services were terminated on 25.11.2002, accordingly demand notice dated 17.12.2002 was served. However, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings a settlement dated 6.1.2003 (Annexure P-1) under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was arrived at. As per the terms and conditions of the settlement the petitioner was taken back into service and it was held that there was no previous dispute and that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, much less he was granted benefit of continuity of service.

(3.) He further submits that as per settlement the petitioner was directed to report on duty on 7.1.2003 and he reported for duty on 7.1.2003 but thereafter, in the month of March, he was not allowed to join duty and in this regard, submitted one application dated 3.3.2003 to the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. He further submitted that the award dated 25.1.2012 also contains the element of decision on issue No.2, therefore is a complete award, therefore the petitioner even if, has not challenged finding rendered on preliminary issue No.2 vide order dated 8.6.2011 (Annexure R-2/2), the petitioner cannot be thrown out on this point. He further submits that the enquiry officer also appeared in the witness box and in cross examination shown ignorance about arrival of the settlement, though the same was handed over during the enquiry and exhibited as Ex. W-4, therefore, the enquiry proceedings are vitiated in law.