MOREISH FOODS LIMITED Vs. DASRATH MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of award dated 22.11.2012 in Reference Case No. 10 of 2011 whereby, the respondent-Workman has been reinstated in service with continuity in service, the present writ petition has been filed. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.7.2011 the respondent-workman submitted an application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming that he was ousted from the factory premises from 7.2.2009. The respondent-management filed its written statement controverting the claim of the respondent-workman. It was specifically pleaded by the management that the respondent-workman had abandoned his service. The claim of the respondent-workman that for two years he visited the factory gate and remained there from morning till evening, was false and fictitious. The claim of the respondent-workman was not supported by any document. The management produced wage register, attendance register and letters in support of its stand that the respondent-workman had voluntarily left service. Nonetheless, ignoring the materials on record, the learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent-workman in service.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the witnesses produced by the respondent-workman were not independent witnesses and they deposed against the management only because the management had taken disciplinary action against them. The respondent-workman did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim however, ignoring the materials on record, the learned Labour Court has passed the award which is liable to be set aside. Relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vijay S. Sathaye vs. Indian Airlines Limited and Others, 2013 10 SCC 253", the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the conduct of the respondent-workman conclusively demonstrates that he abandoned service and therefore, the order of reinstatement in service suffers from serious errors of law.

(3.) From the materials on record, it appears that the respondent-workman was absent from duty w.e.f. 12.1.2009 and a letter of absenteeism was issued to him on 15.1.2009. The respondent-workman was earlier also issued warning letter on 24.12.2008 and the management produced said letter to demonstrate that the respondent-workman was a habitual absentee. The respondent-workman was engaged between the period 28.5.2002 to 12.1.2009 and the learned Labour Court took notice of the fact that the respondent-workman and another workman namely, Nand Kishore Oraon raised the demand for minimum wages, provident fund and other benefits and as a result, the management removed both the workmen. The attendance register, Exhibit-A/1 shows that the respondent-workman absented from 1.1.2009 whereas, the management has produced letter dated 15.1.2009 which shows that the respondent-workman absented himself from 12.1.2009. The wage register for the year, 2009 also contradicts the pleadings of the management. It is further noticed that under the Rule 14(20) of the Model Standing Order, absence of a workman without leave for more than 10 days constitutes "misconduct" however, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent-workman though, the letters dated 15.1.2009 and 29.1.2009 were issued to the respondent-workman. The learned Labour Court has rightly held the removal of the respondent-workman from service illegal. The plea of the management that the respondent-workman voluntarily abandoned his service has also not been accepted. I am of the view that the award dated 22.11.2012 does not suffer from errors of law.