UP VAN SARANKSHAK Vs. SAERAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award dated 19.12.1991 (Ann.8) passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No. 222/87, has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Facts, in brief, are that respondent-workman was initially engaged/appointed in January 1981 and his services were dispensed with on 20.10.1982, but after intervention made by conciliation officer, he was taken back in service and worked upto 19.8.1984, to which the workman raised a dispute that he has not been allowed to work after 19.8.1984. Dispute was referred by appropriate Government vide notification dated 19.4.1986 (Ann.1). Respondent workman in his statement of claim submitted that he was not allowed to work after 19.8.1984 and his verbal termination was made by petitioner in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') ignoring the fact that he has completed more than 240 days in service.

(2.) The petitioner filed reply to statement of claim and has submitted that the workman started his work from August, 1981 and after 15.10.1982 he voluntarily stopped from coming to the office of petitioner and after interference made by conciliation officer on 26.5.1983, he was allowed to work vide order dated 1.9.1983 but he again stopped coming to office from August 1984. It has further been submitted that it was a case of voluntary abandonment of job, and as such, there was no requirement for the petitioner to make compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court after examining the material on record, recorded finding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in service and the petitioner failed to comply with Section 25-F of the Act, and apart from it, no inquiry or notice or opportunity was ever afforded to the workman if it was a case of voluntary abandonment of job, and accordingly directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages vide its Award dated 19.12.1991 (Ann.8). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Only grievance made by petitioner is that material which was available on record before the Labour Court, has not been properly appreciated, and the finding that it cannot be construed to be a case of voluntary abandonment of job, in the facts of present case, cannot be said to be justified, and the direction issued for reinstatement for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was not required because of it being a case of abandonment of job by respondent-workman.