Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1693 (RAJ)

Lipidata System Ltd. Madri v. Kanwari Lal

2002-10-04

PRAKASH TATIA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.Perused the award dated 29.1.2002 by which the Labour Court allowed the claim of the non-petitioner-employee awarding that removal of petitioner from service on 31.10.1992 is illegal and retrenchment of the non-petitioner-employee is not in accordance with law. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner never removed the non-petitioner from service, but in fact, he voluntarily left the job. It is also submitted that even before the Conciliation Officer and before the Labour Court also, the petitioner offered employment to the non-petitioner even then the non-petitioner did not join the services, this clearly shows that non-petitioner abandoned the services and he was not removed. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is evidence of the petitioner that Trigun Pandey was not given employment after removal of the non-petitioner. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. 3. A bare perusal of the facts of the case reveals that so far as employment of non-petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute and so far as offer of reappointment to the non-petitioner by the petitioner is concerned, in the reply the petitioner stated that petitioner is prepared to re-employ the employee-non-petitioner from the date of reply filed before the Labour Court. The reply was filed on 25.1.1997 whereas the petitioner claiming continuity of the service and challenged the order of removal dated 31.10.1992, therefore, the offer of the petitioner is conditional by which the employee was required to fore go his all the benefits of past services rendered by the non-petitioner. This offer was not accepted by the non-petitioner and the non-petitioner in his statement before the Labour Court clearly stated that during the course of Court proceedings he tried to join the duties, but he was not permitted by the petitioner. 4. The evidence available on record with respect to the leaving the job by the non-petitioner and abandonment of his claim is only the statement of one Vishwajeet, witness of the employer. In cross-examination petitioner's witness admitted that when non-petitioner did not turn up for the work, no notice was given to the non-petitioner nor any action was taken against him. The statement on oath of the witness of the petitioner was rebutted by the non-petitioner-employee by giving statement on oath. In cross-examination petitioner's witness admitted that when non-petitioner did not turn up for the work, no notice was given to the non-petitioner nor any action was taken against him. The statement on oath of the witness of the petitioner was rebutted by the non-petitioner-employee by giving statement on oath. The Labour Court after relying upon the evidence of the non-petitioner and looking to the admission of the witnesses of the petitioner recorded finding that the non-petitioner was wrongly removed from service. It is admitted case that the provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act, has not been complied with. I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court and even if the evidence is re-appreciated even then the award passed by the Court below appears to be solely based on evidence available on record. 5. Therefore, there is no illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******