SOOD INDUSTRIES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the Award dated 18.2.2014, passed by the Labour Court in pursuance to the demand raised by the workman, vide which reference of the respondent No. 2 has been decided against the petitioner by reinstating respondent No. 2, with continuity of service and 25% of back-wages. The case set up by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'workman') was that he was appointed as Power Pressman with the petitioner-Management on 4.5.1991 and his services were terminated on 17.7.2006 without complying with the provisions of section 2A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'Act').

(2.) Mr. Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case, submits that services of workman had not been terminated but he used to remain absent from his duties and thus, abandoned his job. He further submits that workman in cross-examination admitted that for his livelihood, he used to earn Rs. 4000-5000 per month and, therefore, the Labour Court has committed illegality and perversity in not referring to the aforementioned admission of the workman and thus, erroneously granted the back-wages to the extent of 25%. He further submits that the Management had filed a return on 3.11.2006 which has not been considered by the Labour Court and rather has been rejected on the ground that the return was filed after serving of the demand notice, thus, urged before this Court that Management is willing to take back workman into service provided 25% of the back-wages as Awarded by the Labour Court is set aside.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:--