MANSOORI BROS Vs. CHHOTU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions have been filed against the impugned Award of the Labour Court dated May 14, 1998, by which the claim of the workmen had been accepted holding that the services of the workmen had been terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"), but in lieu of reinstatement, certain amount of compensation has been granted to the workmen.

(2.) Cross writ petitions have been filed by the employer being aggrieved of the Award of compensation and by the workmen for not awarding reinstatement. As the employer is the same, facts are also identical and the Awards have also been made on similar line, all these petitions are disposed of by the common Judgment and for the same, the facts of Writ Petition No. 2623/1998 are being considered.

(3.) In the said case, the workman was employed in July, 1979 and he worked up to November, 1991 and it was alleged that his services were terminated orally on November 30, 1991. The workman raised an industrial dispute and the Appropriate Government made a reference, vide order dated November 25, 1994: whether the services of the workman had been terminated illegally on November 30, 1991, and if yes, to what relief he wa entitled to? In reply to the claim petition, the employer submitted that the services of the workman were never terminated but he had abandoned the services voluntarily and he had also indulged in illegal activities of stealing petrol and diesel but the employer had condoned the said misconduct. Even before the Labour: Court, the representative of the employer made a statement on February 26, 1998 that the employer was ready to give employment to the workman and he was given employment during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour: Court, but he did not work regularly and again abandoned the job. Workman was given information by a letter Under Postal Certificate but he did not join. That dispute is not relevant for determining the present controversy. As the workman had worked for a long period, it is not necessary to see whether he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year counting backwards from the date of retrenchment. The only issue remains to be determined is: whether his services were terminated or he had abandoned the service voluntarily?