- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner-employers aggrieved by an award of the labour Court, U. P. , Bareilly dated 21st December, 1984, published on 16th March, 1985, passed in adjudication case No. 116 of 1982 have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'11' to the writ petition.
(2.) THE following dispute was referred to the labour Court for adjudication : After receipt of the reference, the labour Court issued notices to both the employers as well as the workman concerned. Both the parties have exchanged their pleadings, filed rejoinder-affidavits and adduced evidence. In short, the workman has set up the case that the workman was employed by the employers-petitioner for past nine years on the post of Condenser Man. His work and conduct was always satisfactory without there being any complaint. It is only in the year 1981 when some union activities were there in the employers' establishment and the workman concerned being an active member of the trade union of the labourers, the employers therefore were in search of occasion to harass the workman. It is in these circumstances, when the workman fell ill, he moved a leave application on 7th July, 1981, which was received in the office of the employers. On 8th July, 1981 again the workman absented because of his ill health and when he reported for duty on 9th July, 1981 in the night shift along with fitness and medical certificate, his supervisor Sri Ramesh Sahni refused to take him on duty. Thereafter, Secretary of the union send a letter dated 10th July, 1981 by Registered post annexing thereto the fitness and medical certificate of the workman to the employers-petitioner with a copy to the Labour Inspector. Moradabad. Thereafter, the workman reported for duty several times, but employers' supervisor never allowed the workman to enter in the factory premises. The workman and the union continued to write the aforesaid conduct of supervisor of the factory, but to no effect. The action of the employers therefore, amounts to unfair labour practice and because of this action of the employers-petitioner, the workman is deprived of his work, which has resulted into the loss of his livelihood. The employers have denied the aforesaid allegations of the workman and stated that the workman was employed in the condensing department of the employers; he remained absent with effect from 7th July, 1981 without any information or leave application and when he did not return till 10th July, 1981, the employers have sent a letter on 10th July, 1981, which was received by the workman concerned on 11th July, 1981. The workman further stated that he has also sent a letter as stated above, which was received by the employers to the effect that when the workman was present for joining his duty on 9th July, 1981, the supervisor of the employers' establishment refused to permit him to join the duties. The workman therefore, went to the Manager, but the Chaukidar refused to permit the workman to enter in the premises of the factory. In these backgrounds, the rival claims were alleged by the workman concerned as well as the employers-petitioner.
(3.) THE labour Court considered the pleadings and the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, namely, workman and the employers-petitioner and has found that the following facts emerged on the basis of the rival pleadings that Ram Nihor, the workman concerned and his supervisor Ramesh Sahni were not having good terms and Ram Nihor has made a complaint that he has threatened to dismiss his services and Ram Nihor was on leave from 7th July, 1981 to 8th July, 1981 and that the concerned workman between 10th July, 1981 to 22nd July, 1981 has sent several letters to the employers that he is continuously reporting for duty with effect from 9th July, 1981, but he is not being permitted. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, pleadings and the evidence, the labour Court has recorded finding that the employers have deliberately not permitted the workman concerned to join his duties with effect from 9th July, 1981, which is neither legal, not justified, therefore, the labour Court gave the award for reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and full back wages. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employers tries to assail the findings recorded by the labour Court, but could not point out, as stated above, any error, much less manifest error, which can be termed as manifest error of law, which may warrant any interference by this Court on the findings recorded by the labour Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner- employers deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.;