Dismissed

Alchem International Limited v. Sanjay Yadav S/O Hukamchand Yadav

Rajasthan HC11 Sept 2020CW/2904/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Industrial Tribunal's order reinstating a workman dismissed in 2012, arguing the dismissal was procedurally invalid due to an alleged refusal to accept a transfer order. The High Court found the Tribunal correct in concluding the transfer story was fabricated as the letter was sent after termination.

What the court decided

AI extract

Alchem International Limited Vs Sanjay… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CW-2904/2020]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2904/2020

¶5

Alchem International Limited, Registered Office- S.p. 2-5, Riico Industrial Area, Neemrana, District Alwar (Rajasthan) Through Its D.g.m. (Legal).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sanjay Yadav S/o Hukamchand Yadav, Resident Of Village And Post Mamriyaahir, Tehsil Rewari, District Rewari (Haryana)

¶9

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

11/09/2020

¶13

The petitioner by way of this petition assails the order dated 6.12.2019 whereby the Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Alwar, has accepted the claim raised by the respondentworkman and has set aside the termination order dated 21.5.2012 by directing to reinstate him with continuity of service and full back-wages.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer order was issued transferring the workman from his present place of posting to Ballabhgarh, Faridabad (Haryana), which he has refused to join, and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been terminated from service. Learned counsel has taken this Court to document Annexure-12 of the writ petition to submit that the letter of transfer was received by the concerned workman. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was always

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-2904/2020]

¶17

ready to continue the workman in service. However, the workman himself has refused to go to the place of posting, and therefore, it cannot be said to be the case of termination from the service.

¶18

I have considered the submissions.

¶19

This Court finds that the workman raised dispute immediately after being removed from service on 21.5.2012 and the Conciliation Officer issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.5.2012. Petitioner has produced letter dated 4.6.2012, said to have been sent by post to the workman relating to his transfer order dated 18^th May, 2012. Another receipt exhibit-M5 dated 7.6.2012 was produced which shows that the letter dated 4.6.2012, was actually send on 7.6.2012. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the workman refused to accept the transfer order dated 18.5.2012, nor he came on duty on 19.5.2012 and stated he will receive the transfer order on 21.5.2012. Thereafter, the workman did not come to the office.

¶20

However, the Judge, Labour Court has examined the evidence which is come on record and the statement of witnesses of the petitioner-Management who have admitted that copy of the transfer order was never served upon the workman. NAW2- N. K. Singh, has stated that a copy of the transfer order was given to the workman through some boy. However, the said boy was never produced in evidence. It is also noticed by the Judge, Labour Court that the transfer order was actually produced before the Conciliation Officer for the first time after service of notice issued to him on 12.6.2012 and thus, he has reached to the conclusion that a story relating to transfer is a made up story prepared in defence to the action of the management in terminating services of the workman on 21.5.2012.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CW-2904/2020]

¶23

Keeping in view above, the Judge, Labour Court has given a finding that the services of the workman were wrongly terminated w.e.f. 21.5.2012 and accordingly granted prayer as prayed above.

¶24

This Court on examining the aforesaid facts and documents, finds that even as per Annexure-12 produced before this Court, it is apparent that the workman from the initial stage has been asserting that he has never served any transfer order and the actually letter of transfer was sent on 4.6.2012 which was received by him on 11.6.2012 and the story was concocted for defence against the wrongful termination dated 21.5.2012.

¶25

Thus, the reference answered in favour of the workman which does not warrant any interference from this Court.

¶26

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 1776 (Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd.) , this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was entitled to full back-wages also. Accordingly, no case for interference on that count is made.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶29

Pooja /48

Alchem International Limited v. Sanjay Yadav S/O Hukamchand Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Alchem International Limited v. Sanjay Yadav S/O Hukamchand Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad S/O Kishna Ram Vs Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation

Rajendra Prasad S/O Kishna Ram Vs Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation

Rajendra Prasad S/O Kishna Ram Vs Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation

Amar Chand S/O Late Shri Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Chand Saxena S/O Shri Rambabu Saxena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Sabir S/O Shri Abdul Mahid Vs State of Rajasthan