RAJU SANKAR POOJARY Vs. CHEMBUR WAREHOUSE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the award dated 23-1-2001, passed by the labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 344 of 1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of illegal termination of his services being established, the Labour. Court erred in not ordering reinstatement and awarding full back wages for the period from the date of termination till the date of closure of the undertaking and by restricting the relief only to the payment of closure compensation.

(3.) THE petitioner joined the respondent-company as a clerk some time in the year 1985. On complaint that his services were illegally terminated from 16-11-1995 and pursuant to the conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter was referred for adjudication of the issue as to whether the petitioner should be ordered to be reinstated with full back wages and with continuity of service with effect from 16-11-1995 to the Labour Court. It is the case of the petitioner that his services were orally terminated without any justifiable reason. On the other hand, it was the case of the respondent-company that inspite of repeated requests the petitioner did not resume his duties and that his services were not at all terminated and being so, there was no question of reinstatement as such and further that the respondent-company was always ready and willing, to allow the petitioner to joint to his duties. It was their case that since the petitioner had abandoned the services without any justification from 17-11-1995, he is not entitled for any relief in the matter. The Labour court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by both the parties, held that the petitioner did not respond positively to the offer made at various stages, by the company to join to his duties and since the undertaking has been closed down, the petitioner would be entitled only to the relief under section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the company would be liable to pay the closure compensation to the petitioner. The relief of reinstatement and for back wages was not granted to the petitioner and hence the present petition.