Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioner-management is being totally insensitive to the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman suffered a serious injury while working with the petitioner-management, leading to amputation of his hand from wrist but the petitioner-management has acted in an unfair manner to somehow ease out the respondent workman from the service, leaving him in the lurch. Such an inhumane approach show the petitioner in rather poor light. 2. The respondent-workman sought reference of the dispute relating to his termination and has successfully prosecuted the same, leading to his reinstatement with full back wages. The respondent-workman has also been awarded the costs of the litigation assessed as Rs. 5000/-. The petitioner- management has accordingly filed the writ petition to impugn the said award. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent-workman was appointed as a Helper on 7.1.2003. It is claimed that the workman was never given any training to operate the power press machine by the trained engineer. The workman, however, was kept engaged to work on power press machine forcibly. On the night intervening 21/22.3.2003, while the workman was working under the control of the petitioner, his right hand came in contact with the power machine and was crushed, leading to amputation from wrist. The workman had to spend huge amount on his treatment from his own pocket. After recovery, he reported for duties and was taken on duty where he worked to the entire satisfaction of the petitioner-management. When he went to perform his duties on 18.12.2003, he was not allowed to enter the factory premises. The petitioner-management refused to pay any service benefit and other dues like leave encashment, LTA, bonus etc. to the respondent-workman. The respondent- workman was, thus, terminated in this manner. Workman would be fully justified in alleging that it was most illegal and against the principles of natural justice and also a colourable exercise of managerial powers and rather misuse of powers. It is claimed that no show cause notice or charge sheet was ever issued to the respondent-workman and he was terminated without holding any enquiry. The respondent-workman accordingly made a claim for reinstatement with full back wages. 4. The petitioner-management filed a written statement, contesting the reference. It is stated that the workman joined on 15.3.2003 as Helper on probation basis for a period of six months on a monthly salary of Rs. 2164/-. The respondent-workman accordingly made a claim for reinstatement with full back wages. 4. The petitioner-management filed a written statement, contesting the reference. It is stated that the workman joined on 15.3.2003 as Helper on probation basis for a period of six months on a monthly salary of Rs. 2164/-. It is the case of the petitioner that workman was only employed as a Helper and was not required to work on the press. It is further stated that due to his own anxiety to learn, the respondent-workman started using the components, when the Operator was setting the stroke of the press. As the operator started the press without the knowledge that the workman was applying grease, his hand got crushed. It is accordingly stated that the workman suffered the injuries due to accident due to his own negligence. The petitioner had spent sum of Rs. 18,000/- and the E.S.I. Authorities had borne the expenses for his treatment as the workman was an insured employee. It is also pointed out that the E.S.I. Authorities had granted monthly pension for the disability suffered by the workman. Having said so, the petitioner has stated that the workman started absenting from duties w.e.f. 16.7.2003 without any prior permission or intimation and he continued to remain absent till 8.9.2003, when he was discharged from service. On this premise, the claim made by the respondent- workman is contested and it is urged that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent-workman. 5. The parties led evidence before the Court and the Labour Court has thereafter answered the reference in favour of the respondent-workman. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the award passed by the Labour Court can not be sustained as it is based on no evidence. The assertions made in the claim petition are also denied and disputed and hence, it is prayed that the award passed by the Labour Court be set-aside. 7. I have not been able to appreciate the line of submission pursued by counsel for the petitioner. The workman appeared as a witness in support of his claim, clearly stating that he was employed w.e.f. 7.1.2003 as a Helper. 7. I have not been able to appreciate the line of submission pursued by counsel for the petitioner. The workman appeared as a witness in support of his claim, clearly stating that he was employed w.e.f. 7.1.2003 as a Helper. He had otherwise also given evidence in support of his claim, which was to the effect that he was forcibly kept engaged on power press machine, on account of which he suffered an accident on the night intervening 21/22.3.2003. His version also is that the respondent-workman was kept on duty after the recovery from injury and was suddenly terminated on 18.12.2003. The workman has also produced another witness, who supported him as regard the cause and manner of the accident, he being a witness thereto. How could this then be treated as a case of no evidence as stated is really not understood. 8. On behalf of the management, Sh. H. P. Singh, Proprietor, appeared and filed a sworn affidavit. His version would disclose that after treatment the complainant had joined his duty on 9.6.2003 and had worked upto 15.7.2003. Accordingly, it is stated that the respondent-workman had started absenting from duty on 16.7.2003 onwards. This witness otherwise conceded that the workman was given no training. This witness also conceded that after the accident the workman was taken on duty, he being fit to perform the same. On the basis of these versions and on appreciation thereof, the Labour Court found that workman was able to establish his assertions. 9. After appreciating the documents produced, the Labour Court came to conclude that Management had obtained the signatures of the workman on the appointment letter and the application Exhibit M2 was filled up thereafter as per the convenience of the management. In this regard, reference was made to the crossexamination of management witness, H.P.Singh, wherein he stated that he did not remember as to whether the claimant had worked in the Packing Department before accident. Once the appointment of the respondent-workman was conceded, the Labour Court was justified in drawing an inference that the management had created certain documents only to get benefit of the accident from the E.S.I. Corporation. If the workman was appointed as was shown on 15.3.2003, the management could have easily produce the appointment letter. The management also failed to establish that accident was due to the fault on the part of the respondentworkman. If the workman was appointed as was shown on 15.3.2003, the management could have easily produce the appointment letter. The management also failed to establish that accident was due to the fault on the part of the respondentworkman. Even the Operator was not examined to prove this fact if there was any negligence on the part of the workman. No record was produced, though it was admitted that the workman was assisting the Operator on the machine. 10. The Labour Court, thus, was justified in concluding that workman was allowed to work on the press machine without training. From this necessary consequence about the date and manner of appointment was rightly inferred. The Labour Court rather commented on the conduct of the management to observe that the management had victimized the poor workman in the circumstances where the young unmarried man has lost his right hand wrist due to amputation. The Labour Court has rightly observed that this was inhuman behaviour of the management and was to be discouraged. 11. The management is seen acting in a most unfair and unreasonable manner. Having employed the workman and making him to suffer the accident, the management is seen washing its hands of the liability. It is the attitude rather than helping the workman, who had suffered while working for the management. Somuch so, the management even refused to give him work, which was a clever mode adopted to terminate the services of a handicapped employee. If the workman had started absenting, the management did not send any letter to him. He was never called to join back duties, a fact which was conceded by the witness of the management. Why would the workman absent and then file a claim. If it was so, he could have easily been asked to join during conciliation proceedings. It is seen that the management was interested only in getting rid of the workman and had acted to so create documents to support its stand, which is most unreasonable and rather disgusting to notice. 12. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with costs, which are assessed as Rs. 10,000/-. The respondent-workman would be entitled to get this cost in addition to the benefits already granted to him and the costs which were allowed by the Labour Court. Petition dismissed.