NORTON ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the legality of the award dated 19. 11. 1981 (Ann. P. 7) passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, ordering reinstatement of respondent No. 2, with continuity of service and full back-wages after deduction of the amount which is proved to have been earned by him during this period, has been challenged.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 had worked for about six years as Chowkidar on a monthly salary of Rs. 220.00 with the petitioner-management and his services were terminated on September 26, 1976 without any notice or enquiry and in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'act' ). The workman raised a dispute and the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Act, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Amritsar. On receipt of the order of reference the parties appeared and the management (present petitioner) filed written statement and controverted, the allegation that the services of the workman had been terminated on September 26, 1976. The management took a specific plea that the workman had joined service on 11. 7. 1975 but submitted his resignation of his own on 24. 8. 1976 which was accepted on 25. 8. 1976. The workman after received his dues upto 25. 8. 1976, left for his village in Uttar Pradesh, Following issues were framed by the Labour Court:1. Whether the workman resigned from the job" If so, to what effect" 2. Whether termination of the services of the concerned workman is justified and in order?

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impunged award has contended that the Labour Court grossly erred in law and in contravention of the principles of natural justice in as much as it did not afford any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner-management to produce its evidence, According to him, onus of issue No. 2 was upon the workman and since he failed to come into the witness box therefore, there was no question of leading any evidence in rebuttal by the management. He has further submitted that the management has summoned two witnesses for 13. 10. 1977, vide Annexure P. 5 and thereafter the case continued to be adjourned for one reason or the other and when the same was taken up on 6. 1. 1981, both the parties requested for a date and the matter was adjourned to 31. 3. 1981, for evidence. He has further submitted that the management had summoned expert witness namely; Shri R. S. Bal and had deposited diet money but he was not summoned. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court was not justified to close the evidence of the management and it has resulted into miscarriage of justice and the case be remitted for fresh decision. After giving my thoughtful consideration to this submission of the learned counsel and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force and substance therein. No doubt the case was adjourned from time to time for one reason or the other but the management did not produce its evidence. Last opportunity was granted to the management to produce its evidence on 15. 9. 1981. It was the duty of the management to produce its entire evidence on that day on its responsibility. The management having failed to do so, the Labour Court was fully justified to close the evidence by detailed order dated 15. 9. 1981.