VED PARKASH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, FARIDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workman has approached this Court for setting aside the Award dated 05.02.2010, whereby, the reference has been decided against the workman by raising plea that the Labour Court has committed illegality and perversity in not addressing the oral and documentary evidence brought on record to contend that the services of the petitioner had willfully and in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D.Act'), been terminated on 12.1.2003, whereas, petitioner had been working as Zince Operator in the factory since 10.01.1984.

(2.) MR . Deepak Sonak, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has rendered a finding on conjectures and surmises by believing the plea of Management that petitioner is stated to have abandoned the job and his services were not terminated. He further submitted that when the matter was pending before the Conciliation Officer, WW2, the petitioner -workman was offered to assume for duty but the Management did not allow him to join duty. A copy of the report of the Conciliation Officer is annexed as Annexure P -4. Mr. O.P. Ahuja, Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajpal Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 contended that it was a clear case of the abandonment of the service and not the case of the termination. The Management was willing to take back him into job but the workman refused to join duty and therefore, the claim of the workman has rightly been rejected by the Labour Court.

(3.) IN support of his aforementioned arguments, Mr. Ahuja, learned counsel, relied upon the judgments of Jharkhand High Court in Tinplate Company of India Limited vs. State of Bihar and others, 2003 LLR 171; The Workmen represented by Bihar Engineering Kamgar Union, Refuge Market, Dhanbad vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and another,2003 LLR 922 and Bombay High Court in R.K.Kitchen Equipment, Mumbai vs. Majid Yusuf Hurape and others,2003 LLR 920, to contend, that where the workman has refused to join duties, despite repeated offers by the Management and even ignored the advice of the Conciliation Officer to resume work and workman would not be entitled to full back wages. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the impugned Award and judgments cited by learned counsel for the Management at bar and am of the view that findings of the Labour Court is not based on the record and erroneous and thus, vitiated in law. It would be apt to extract herein below the Conciliation Proceeding, annexed as Annexure P -4: -