LIPIDATA SYSTEM LTD. MADRI Vs. KANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the award dated 29.1.2002 by which the Labour Court allowed the claim of the non-petitioner-employee awarding that removal of petitioner from service on 31.10.1992 is illegal and retrenchment of the non-petitioner-employee is not in accordance with law.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner never removed the non-petitioner from service, but in fact, he voluntarily left the job. It is also submitted that even before the Conciliation Officer and before the Labour Court also, the petitioner offered employment to the non-petitioner even then the non-petitioner did not join the services, this clearly shows that non-petitioner abandoned the services and he was not removed. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is evidence of the petitioner that Trigun Pandey was not given employment after removal of the non-petitioner. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be set aside.

(3.) A bare perusal of the facts of the case reveals that so far as employment of non-petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute and so far as offer of reappointment to the non-petitioner by the petitioner is concerned, in the reply the petitioner stated that petitioner is prepared to re-employ the employee-non-petitioner from the date of reply filed before the Labour Court. The reply was filed on 25.1.1997 whereas the petitioner claiming continuity of the service and challenged the order of removal dated 31.10.1992, therefore, the offer of the petitioner is conditional by which the employee was required to fore go his all the benefits of past services rendered by the non-petitioner. This offer was not accepted by the non-petitioner and the non-petitioner in his statement before the Labour Court clearly stated that during the course of Court proceedings he tried to join the duties, but he was not permitted by the petitioner.