LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-123

VIKAS ADHIKARI Vs. LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

Decided On August 04, 2015
Vikas Adhikari Appellant
V/S
Labour Court And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Panchayat Samiti, Kishanganj, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner -employer', for short), is aggrieved of the award dated 22nd June, 1998, wherein the Labour Court while answering the reference in negative and in favour of the respondent -workman, accorded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% back wages.

(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are: that the respondent -workman was appointed vide order dated 1st November, 1989, on daily wages basis @ Rs. 14/ - per day as 'Chowkidar'. The employment of the respondent -workman was brought to an end on 28th February, 1991. On an industrial dispute raised by the respondent -workman, the State Government made a reference in exercise of powers under Sec. 10(1) read with Sec. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act of 1947'), to the Labour Court. On a consideration of the statement of claim, response filed by the petitioner -employer and evidence adduced by the parties as well as materials available on record, the action of the petitioner -employer in terminating the employment of the respondent -workman with effect from 1st March, 1991, without notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation, was adjudicated upon as illegal, invalid and arbitrary.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner -employer, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphatically argued that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are contrary to the pleaded facts, evidence and materials available on record. According to the learned counsel, the respondent -workman himself abandoned the job as he was allotted a cooperative fair price shop. It is further contended that the relevant documents though were summoned from the Office of the District Supply Officer (D.S.O.), but the same could not be brought on record.