Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1484 (HP)

Hem Raj v. Presiding Judge

2019-10-01

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner-workman has challenged award dated 18.12.2013, passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, H.P. in Reference No. 242/2012, titled as Shri Hem Raj versus the Divisional Forest Officer, vide which, Reference made to the said Court by the appropriate Government stood answered against the workman. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that an Industrial Dispute was raised by the petitioner/workman purportedly with regard to alleged termination of his services w.e.f. June, 2009, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Mandi, without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. On the basis of Industrial Dispute so raised, the following Reference was made to the learned Labour Court by the appropriate Government for adjudication:- "Whether the termination of services of Sh. Hem Raj S/o Shri Amar Singh, R/O Village Lot, P.O. Baloh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. from time to time during year, 1999 to June, 2009 and finally terminated w.e.f. June, 2009 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest division, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, past service benefits, seniority and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?" 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following Issues:- "1. Whether the termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent from time to time during the year 1999 to June, 2009 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the final termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent from time to time during the year 1999 to June, 2009 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR 5. Relief." 5. The same were answered as under by the learned Labour Court on the strength of the evidence which was adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions:- "Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2 : No. Issue No. 3 : Yes. Issue No. 4 : No. Relief : Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award." 6. The same were answered as under by the learned Labour Court on the strength of the evidence which was adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions:- "Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2 : No. Issue No. 3 : Yes. Issue No. 4 : No. Relief : Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award." 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/workman has filed the present petition. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned award as well as the documents appended with the petition as also the record of the case. 8. It is evident from the perusal of the record that the Industrial dispute was raised by the workman feeling aggrieved by his alleged termination from service w.e.f. June, 2009, purportedly, without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the Reference so made by the appropriate Government, learned Labour Court was also called upon to adjudicate upon the grievance of the workman as to whether there was any time to time termination of services of the workman from the year 1999 to June, 2009 and whether it amounted to violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner admitted that he was engaged for seasonal forestry work only. Petitioner's admission is on record that in the year 2002, he had not worked for a single day and thereafter, in the year 2003, 2004 and 2007, he had worked for 23, 29 and 28 days respectively. During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner/workman could not prove that the findings returned in the impugned award were contrary to the record. 10. Record further demonstrates that in the course of his cross examination, petitioner admitted that he left the job voluntarily in June 2009. In my considered view, for succeeding before the learned Labour Court, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have had demonstrated that when his services were allegedly terminated in June, 2009 by the employer, the same was without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Now, here is a case where an Industrial Dispute was raised by the workman after he voluntarily left the job in June 2009. Now, here is a case where an Industrial Dispute was raised by the workman after he voluntarily left the job in June 2009. That being the case, the Industrial Dispute raised by the workman purportedly on the ground that his services were terminated without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, was by providing incorrect facts. It appears that the reason for raising the Industrial Dispute and thereunder raking up the issue of termination of his services in between 1999 and June 2009 in an arbitrary manner by violating the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act by the workman, was nothing but an afterthought. 11. A perusal of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court demonstrates that all these aspects of the matter have been dealt with by the learned Tribunal. It has taken into consideration the admission of the petitioner/ workman that he had voluntarily left the job w.e.f. 01.07.2009 and on these bases, learned Tribunal while answering the Reference, returned the findings that as the petitioner has abandoned the job of his own, on account of his free volition, in these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that termination of the services of the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my considered view, the findings so returned by the learned Tribunal are correct findings. As the workman himself had voluntarily abandoned the job, there is no question of his services being terminated. 12. Where a workman abandons his job, it is not incumbent upon the employer to follow the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, because these provisions are to be complied with when it is the call of the employer to terminate the services of the workman. Accordingly, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.