the claim petition, the second respondent issued a legal notice dated 28.05.2007, stating that at the first instance he was paid monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and on 01.01.2000, he was promised salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, but actual payment of Rs.5,000/- alone was paid and there was a promise to pay difference of Rs.7,000/- per month at a future date. Further, it was stated that when he made a demand for payment of the arrears of salary during 2007, the amount was not paid and the petitioner stopped the second respondent from service with a view to defeat the claim for arrears of salary. It was stated that the second respondent was abruptly dismissed from service from 01.03.2007 and the dismissal is unjust. Thus, the second respondent claimed, apart from the difference in salary, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and in all Rs.16,02,000/-. Thus in terms of legal notice dated 28.05.2007, (Exhibit P5), the second respondent accepted that he was dismissed from service. The petitioner sent a reply notice dated 01.06.2007, (Exhibit P6) stating that the second respondent stopped attending work from 01.03.2007 and for the service rendered by him, he has been paid salary dues and the other allegations were denied. After the reply notice was sent, the second respondent moved the Labour Court by filing the petition to compute his wages. Interestingly in paragraph 5 of the claim petition, the second respondent took a diametrically opposite stand stating as if the management was insisting him to continue in employment. Thus, it is the admission of the second respondent that there was no termination of his employment. For the first time in the claim petition, there was a reference to an undertaking given on 21.07.2006. This letter was not referred to in the legal notice (Exhibit P.5) and produced before the Labour Court for the first time.
