Present: Mr. Mandeep Sajjan Advocate Vs. the Presiding Officer (District and Sessions Judge) Industrial Tribunal - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1138368
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-25-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. Mandeep Sajjan Advocate
RespondentThe Presiding Officer (District and Sessions Judge) Industrial Tribunal
Excerpt:
cwp no.4431 of 2013 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.4431 of 2013 date of decision: 25.04.2014 m/s.kamal and satish ...petitioner(s) versus the presiding officer, (district and sessions judge).industrial tribunal, amritsar and another ...respondent(s) coram: hon'ble mr.justice g.s.sandhawalia present: mr.mandeep sajjan, advocate, for the petitioner. g.s.sandhawalia, j. (oral) in the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 30.10.2012 (annexure p-1) whereby, the workman has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages by the labour court, amritsar in an ex pate award. the claim of the respondent-workman was that he had sent demand notice on 14.03.2006 claiming that he had been working since 1998 with the petitioner-management and his services were terminated on 16.06.2005 and he was drawing `2,500/- per month as salary. the defence taken was that the petitioner is not an industry and is an agricultural farm and, therefore, the provisions of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (in short 'the act') would not be applicable. the workman had left employment on his own after receiving his dues in full and final on 30.08.2005 and also executed writing to the effect and had gupta shivani 2014.04.28 13:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.4431 of 2013 2 thumb marked and signed the same. it was admitted that the workman was provided with residential accommodation and he had handed over peaceful and vacant possession while leaving the employment of his own volition. it was submitted that he was gainfully employed from the date of leaving employment and was working at a marriage palace. the workman examined himself as mw1 whereas the management examined kamal chand as rw1, who only appeared for the purposes of submitting of affidavit but never came forward for cross examination. the labour court noticed that the workman was staying in two rooms and one kitchen built on 5 marlas of plot adjacent to the godown of fire crackers and rejected the plea that the workman had left on his own while noticing that he was 58 years old. it was held that the respondents were running the godown and would fall within the definition of industry and the workman was entitled to the protection of the act. counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the labour court has failed to take into consideration that the workman had abandoned the job by placing reliance upon the receipt dated 30.08.2005 (ex.r-2) (annexure p-4) herein. a perusal of the said receipt would go on to show that it has been issued by the satish sales corporation, general merchants, fire works dealers & commission agents and the vernacular would go on to show that it is filled out by some person and the name of the workman has been written and thereafter thumb marked. the deposition of the workman, which has been placed on record as annexure p-5, would go on to show that there was specific plea by the workman that he was given 5 marlas of land gupta shivani 2014.04.28 13:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.4431 of 2013 3 for construction of house in the year 1998 where he built two rooms and one kitchen and he had been evicted from the residential house. in the cross examination, he has specifically deposed that he was turned out forcibly by the management. the labour court was thus well justified in rejecting the defence of the petitioner-management that the workman had left on his own as per the receipt. as noticed, the witness of the management never put in appearance to suffer the cross examination and to show that in what circumstances, receipt was taken. necessarily, advers.inference has to be drawn against the petitioner-management. the labour court has further granted only 50% of back wages from the date of claim till realization, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be justified keeping in view the fact that the workman had raised construction and was residing in the premises from where he was evicted by the petitioner-management. accordingly, this court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the labour court and the present writ petition is dismissed in limine. 25.04.2014 (g.s.sandhawalia) shivani judge gupta shivani 2014.04.28 13:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CWP No.4431 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4431 of 2013 Date of decision: 25.04.2014 M/S.Kamal and Satish ...Petitioner(s) Versus The Presiding Officer, (District and Sessions Judge).Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Mandeep Sajjan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

(Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the Award dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby, the workman has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages by the Labour Court, Amritsar in an ex pate award.

The claim of the respondent-workman was that he had sent demand notice on 14.03.2006 claiming that he had been working since 1998 with the petitioner-management and his services were terminated on 16.06.2005 and he was drawing `2,500/- per month as salary.

The defence taken was that the petitioner is not an industry and is an agricultural farm and, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') would not be applicable.

The workman had left employment on his own after receiving his dues in full and final on 30.08.2005 and also executed writing to the effect and had Gupta Shivani 2014.04.28 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.4431 of 2013 2 thumb marked and signed the same.

It was admitted that the workman was provided with residential accommodation and he had handed over peaceful and vacant possession while leaving the employment of his own volition.

It was submitted that he was gainfully employed from the date of leaving employment and was working at a marriage palace.

The workman examined himself as MW1 whereas the management examined Kamal Chand as RW1, who only appeared for the purposes of submitting of affidavit but never came forward for cross examination.

The Labour Court noticed that the workman was staying in two rooms and one kitchen built on 5 marlas of plot adjacent to the godown of fire crackers and rejected the plea that the workman had left on his own while noticing that he was 58 years old.

It was held that the respondents were running the godown and would fall within the definition of industry and the workman was entitled to the protection of the Act.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration that the workman had abandoned the job by placing reliance upon the receipt dated 30.08.2005 (Ex.R-2) (Annexure P-4) herein.

A perusal of the said receipt would go on to show that it has been issued by the Satish Sales Corporation, General Merchants, Fire Works Dealers & Commission Agents and the vernacular would go on to show that it is filled out by some person and the name of the workman has been written and thereafter thumb marked.

The deposition of the workman, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-5, would go on to show that there was specific plea by the workman that he was given 5 marlas of land Gupta Shivani 2014.04.28 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.4431 of 2013 3 for construction of house in the year 1998 where he built two rooms and one kitchen and he had been evicted from the residential house.

In the cross examination, he has specifically deposed that he was turned out forcibly by the management.

The Labour Court was thus well justified in rejecting the defence of the petitioner-management that the workman had left on his own as per the receipt.

As noticed, the witness of the management never put in appearance to suffer the cross examination and to show that in what circumstances, receipt was taken.

Necessarily, adveRs.inference has to be drawn against the petitioner-management.

The Labour court has further granted only 50% of back wages from the date of claim till realization, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be justified keeping in view the fact that the workman had raised construction and was residing in the premises from where he was evicted by the petitioner-management.

Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the Labour Court and the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.

25.04.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Gupta Shivani 2014.04.28 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh