Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1067 (PNJ)

Raghbeer Machinery (P) Ltd. v. State Of Haryana

2002-10-16

N.K.SUD

body2002
Judgment N. K. SUD, J. 1. This petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Faridabad dated 23/04/1987 whereby the respondent-workman has been ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. 2. Puran Chand, respondent No.3, was appointed by the petitioner on 12/09/1981 as Milling Man. He claimed that he was removed from service on 13/09/1982 without any order in writing. This, according to him, was evident from the fact that he was not being allowed to join the duty. On the other hand, the petitioners claim is that it had not terminated the services of the respondent but it was he who had not reported for duty since 13/09/1982. The matter was referred under Sec.10 (l) (c) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication by the labour Court. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, the following interim orders were passed on February 10, 1983 and 22/02/1983: 10/02/1983: W. S. is not ready. Date is prayed at the stage. Representative of respondent state that the management is ready to take the worker on duty with continuity of service with full back wages, the Court go into the matter. The worker agreed with the proposal of the management. So, he is directed to join the duty tomorrow i. e.11/02/1983 at 9.00 A. M. Now to come up to report about duty by the workman on 21/02/1983 at Gurgaon". " 22/02/1983: On Fe 10/02/1983, the worker was directed to join the duty as offered by the Management. The worker sent letter to me that the respondent was not given the job on 21/02/1983. The worker states inability to join because they are not offering any job to me and gets sits at the gate of the factory which he does not want. I also put a suggestion to accompany the L. I. but that to it was not accepted by the workman. Now to come up on 28/02/1983 at Faridabad for rejoinder and issue". It is, thereafter, that the present award has been passed accepting the contention of the workman that the Management had been playing mischief with him from the very beginning and had forcibly ousted him from work on 13/09/1982. The Labour Court has also referred to some complaints made by the workman to the Labour Department. It is, thereafter, that the present award has been passed accepting the contention of the workman that the Management had been playing mischief with him from the very beginning and had forcibly ousted him from work on 13/09/1982. The Labour Court has also referred to some complaints made by the workman to the Labour Department. On the other hand, the stand of the Management that the workman had not joined duty despite several letters sent to him in this behalf, was rejected by the Labour court. 3 Mr. Alok Jain, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, stated that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the Management had forcibly ousted the respondent-workman. He stated that the interim orders dated 10/02/1983 and F 22/02/1983 clearly show that despite the willingness of the Management to let the workman join with full back wages, the workman had refused to join on a false ground that he was not being assigned any job and was being made to sit outside the gate. He further pointed out that the workman had even refused the suggestion of the Court to accompany the Labour Inspector for joining the duty with the petitioner. 4. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent- workman, on the other hand, supports the order of the Labour Court. According to him from the facts as narrated in the order itself, it is quite evident that the management was bent upon harassing the workman and had ousted him forcibly. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. A perusal of the interim orders dated 10/02/1983 and F 22/02/1983, already reproduced earlier in this order, show that the workman was not willing to join despite a specific offer made to him. This offer was made to him on 10/02/1983. On February 21, 1983, he had reported to the Court that he was not being assigned any job and was being made to sit outside the gate. The Court had offered to depute a Labour Inspector to accompany him to verify this factual position. However, for the reasons best known to him the workman declined this offer. From this, the only inference that can be drawn is that the workman himself was not interested in joining the duty. Any workman who is out of job would have promptly grabbed the opportunity to accompany the Labour Inspector. Mr. However, for the reasons best known to him the workman declined this offer. From this, the only inference that can be drawn is that the workman himself was not interested in joining the duty. Any workman who is out of job would have promptly grabbed the opportunity to accompany the Labour Inspector. Mr. Aggarwals contention that the workman could not be asked to sit outside the gate without any specific job is a mere ipse dixit of the workman unsupported by any evidence. Had the workman accepted the offer to accompany the labour Inspector for joining the duty and had the Labour Inspector so reported, probably the workman could have had a case. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the conduct of the Management can not be faulted with. It had acted fairly and had offered to let the workman join with full back wages and continuity of service. It was I the workman who had refused this offer. Unfortunately, the Labour Court, in para 8 of its order has duly referred to the interim orders dated 10/02/1983 and 22/02/1983, but has totally overlooked this aspect of the matter. 6. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The same is, accordingly, set aside. 7. At this stage, Mr. Aggarwal points out that the workman has been working with the petitioner for the last 10 years or so. If the workman has been allowed to work for the last more than 10 years, then, it would not be fair to remove him by virtue of the order in the present writ petition. However, it is made clear that he shall not be entitled to any benefit under the award of the Labour Court which has been set aside.