BHIM SEN SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is to challenge the award rejecting the reference sought by the workman on the ground that he had been illegally terminated from service on 25.08.1988. The rejection was occasioned by two grounds: one, the reference had been to the effect that the workman had been terminated on 25.08.1988, but it transpired through evidence that the workman had been served with the notice dated 25.08.1988 that prescribed a three months' period for termination of service to be effective. Accordingly, the termination was to take effect from 25.11.1988 and therefore, the reference stipulating a different date could not avail to the workman the relief which he wanted. Two, the workman had admittedly sought for a reference complaining of the termination of service as illegal and bad, but he withdrew his case before the Court and no proof had been adduced that the case had been withdrawn for any technical defect. The reference sought on the same subject which had been previously allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn, could not be a valid reference.

(2.) THE workman's contention was that he had been refused permission to continue after 25.08.1988. The management joined issue to state that it had not terminated the services but the workman absented himself, but at the same time, the management also wanted to contend that after his confirmation in service, he had been served with terms and conditions of employment which provided for a right to the management to terminate the services after three months' notice. The workman had also signed the terms and conditions and had made an acknowledgment of the terms and therefore, after such a notice was served, the workman cannot complain that the termination was bad. The management had yet another contention to make that subsequent to 25.08.1988, it had issued notices on 31.08.1988, 12.09.1988 and 25.10.1988, directing the workman to resume duty, but he had not joined inspite of the receipt of the notices. The effect of these notices themselves, in my view, come to nothing, for, if the contention of the management was that the termination was to be operative after three 'months' notice from 09.08.1988, direction for joining the duty could not have been for any purpose except that the workman was bound to work during the period till he was actually terminated on 09.11.1988.

(3.) WHILE it is a trite law that a Labour Court cannot go behind the terms of reference, in this case, the Court ought not to have looked beyond what the parties were contending. The workman had stated that he had been stopped from service from 25.08.1988 and such cessation of work was an admitted fact except that the management was disowning the responsibility for the workman not coming from 25.08.1988. The workman has been fighting assiduously that he had not been permitted to attend and it is artificial to believe that the workman absented himself without any reason. If we examine the issue that the workman was sought to be jettisoned from service and it was not too keen to retain him and had purported to have issued notices earlier, the evidence that the workman had given that he had not been permitted to attend, must obtain a credible value. I accept the contention of the workman that he had not been permitted to resume his duty from 25,08.1988. The reference, in such a context, seeking for an adjudication whether the termination was valid or not was justified and there was no scope for a doubt that the reference itself was bad.