The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that found the petitioner abandoned his job. The Court held the award was justified and well-reasoned, noting the petitioner's history and failure to enforce a prior reinstatement award promptly.
The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 10117 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10117 of 2014 Date of decision: 23.05.2014
Satyavir Singh
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate, for Mr. Minderjeet Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 22.05.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon whereby, a finding has been recorded that the workman had abandoned the job of his own accord and the case had been filed only to make money from the management.
The case has a chequered history inter se the parties.
A perusal of the file would go on to show that initially the petitioner was appointed on 01.03.1992 as Assistant Pump Operator and his services were terminated on 01.01.1994, which he successfully challenged and an Award dated 06.05.2003 was passed in his favour. Reinstatement was ordered on his previous post with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner received a sum of `1,31,320/- as back wages and was reinstated.
Gupta Shivani 2014.07.07 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 10117 of 2014
2
The petitioner thereafter raised a demand on 20.11.2003 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') that his services had been terminated again w.e.f. 26.09.2003 without any reason.
The matter being referred to the Labour Court, the management took the defence that the applicant was absent from his duties w.e.f. 06.10.2003 and the management was prepared to take him on duty but without back wages for the intervening period during the conciliation proceedings. It was specifically averred that he had joined duty on 26.09.2003 and worked up-till 03.10.2003 and thereafter 04.10.2003 and 05.10.2003 being holidays, he had become absent from 06.10.2003. It is also a matter of record that the amount of compensation was paid on 24.09.2003 vide cheque.
The Labour Court after examining the workman and Sumit Sharma as RW-1, recorded the adverse finding against the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner's services were again terminated the moment he joined in view of the Award dated 06.05.2003 and the management had a mala fide intention against him due to the fact he had been reinstated.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the said submission. The earlier Award was a contested Award and the dispute was not compromised. There is nothing to show that the management filed any writ petition. The cheque was paid, as noticed, 4 months later and reinstatement was also at the same point of time. In the case set up by the petitioner, he has pleaded that he had joined on 06.05.2003, which has rightly been discarded as it is only when the
amount was paid he had joined in September. He seems to have worked for Gupta Shivani 2014.07.07 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 10117 of 2014
3
a period of 6 days as noticed by the Labour Court and abandoned his job and various letters Exs.R-2 and R-3 were also sent to him through registered post to join but he failed to do so. The demand notice was raised on 20.11.2003, after almost 2 months from the date he had initially joined. Had there been any grouse regarding the non-joining since the petitioner already had an Award dated 06.05.2003 in his favour, he would have preferred firstly to approach the Labour-cum-Conciliation Authorities to get the Award enforced and get himself reinstated. Thus, the Labour Court has come to a very justified finding that the case has been filed only to squeeze the management for more compensation after already having received a handsome amount as back wages.
Accordingly, in such circumstances, no fault can be found in the well reasoned order passed by the Labour Court and the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.
23.05.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani 2014.07.07 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the award by the Labour Court finding that the petitioner abandoned his job and the case was filed only to secure financial benefit should be interfered with.
Whether there was any merit in the plea that the petitioner's termination was mala fide given his prior reinstatement.
Satyavir Singh
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
