SINDH KNITWEARS PRIVATE LIMITED, G T ROAD, LUDHIANA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the Labour Court's award directing 50% of the wages for the relevant period from 14.11.1995 when the award was passed.

(2.) To a claim by the workman that he had been wrongly terminated from services, the response of the Management was that the workman had availed of a loan of Rs. 2,000/- on 8.12.1984 and had never returned to the factory. The contention was that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the service. There was no plea anywhere either by the petitioner or by the respondent relating to the age of the workman or that he was deemed to have been superannuated. However, it appears that it was elicited that the workman was 75 years at the time when he was giving the evidence. The Labour Court, therefore, assumed that he was more than 64 years of age at the time of termination on 8.12.1984. It still awarded 50% back wages as well as compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management would contend that in the absence of any specific agreement/settlement or award, the age of retirement by superannuation as per Industrial Employment Standing Orders, Punjab Rules, 1978 shall be 58 years and by such a reckoning on 8.12.1984, he must be deemed to have been superannuated. I find that such a contention had never been taken in the written statement. I find myself unable, therefore to subscribe to a reasoning that the workman must be deemed to be superannuated on that day. The finding of the Labour Court itself that the termination was bad in view of the fact that there had been no specific proceedings of the Management either by way of notice to show cause against termination or with reference to any particular standing order that enabled the Management to treat long absence without sanction of leave to mean abandonment of service. It shall not therefore, be possible for the employer to contend that the termination of service should be treated as voluntary abandonment of service.