Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order/award dated 30.05.2002 (published in Gazette dated 21.11.2003) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, U. P. Agra in Case No. 93/97.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner's Company is a manufacturer of Leather Tops for the Shoes. It is a government recognized Export House mainly engaged in exporting the Leather Tops of Shoes. It's registered Office is located at 17 Kucha Chodhary Opposite State Bank Building, Chandani Chowk, Delhi and has a branch Office at 164 F. M. Cariappa Road, Babuganj, Agra. In the petition, it is, stated that the Company engaged several workers for the preparation of Leather Tops for the Shoes. These Shoe Tops are made on orders received from foreign Countries. To supervise the manufacturing of these Shoes Topes, few supervisors are also engaged. The working condition and service conditions are governed by the Standing Orders. These Standing Orders are duly certified by the Competent Authority. Amendments made from time to time are also incorporated. The respondent No. 3 was engaged by the petitioner's Company on the post of Cutting Inspector on 01.02.1989. He continued to work till 16.11.1992 and thereafter, he expressed his desire to leave employment. Petitioner's Company had no objection and accepted the oral resignation and he ceased to work from 16.11.1992. The respondent No. 3 had accepted Rs. 6,723.85 as the amount due and issued a receipt for the same. A copy of Experience Certificate was issued to him. The respondent No. 3 again approached the petitioner and expressed his desire to work as Cutting Supervisor/Inspector. Petitioner' Company had no objection as such as per the procedure laid down in the Standing Orders, the respondent No. 3 had applied for job. An appointment letter was issued and he joined the job from 08.12.1992 as a Cutting Supervisor/Inspector. Copy of the appointment letter is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The appointment letter clearly states the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Cutting Supervisor on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1850/-. It further says that the service is governed by the Standing Orders of the Company as well as administrative orders enforced from time to time and the services may be terminated on one calendar months notice in writing being given by either or payment of one months salary in lieu of notice. After the appointment, respondent No. 3 was supervising the work of other Leather Cutting Mistri. The work of these Leather Cutting Mistry was to cut Leather as per pattern given to them. The work of the respondent No. 3 was to see whether all Mistries were working according to the pattern given to them and minimum wastage was being caused to the leather in the work. The patterns were prepared as per the specification of the shapes of the Shoes approved by the foreign Companies and this technical work was to be supervised by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 had to supervise that leather was to be cut according to the patterns approved with minimum wastage. It is true that some time the respondent No. 3 had also done the cutting of the leather alongwith other Cutting Mistry only to educate them so that there should be minimum wastage in the work. It was not his regular work. The respondent No. 3 is a Bachlor of Arts degree with Economics, English Literate and Hindi and thereafter, he did his post graduate in Urdu language. Thus, he was an educated employee and was capable to read what he has signed. It is, stated that the respondent No. 3 on his own accord, desired to leave the job for better opportunity and he left the service on 15.3.1997.
(3.) According to the petitioner, it was not the case of retrenchment and a case of mutual agreement for leaving the service to which, the employer had no objection. It is, further stated that the respondent No. 3 when could not get the job in any other establishment, he again approached the petitioner to get the job which has been refused. The respondent No. 3 was paid all his balance salary, retrenchment allowance as a good gesture. Although, the petitioner's Company was not obliged to pay the leave encashment amount but it was also paid. The total amount was calculated at Rs. 19,555.40 out of which a sum of Rs. 1,700/- advance due against the respondent No. 3 was deducted. The total amount of Rs. 17,855.40 was paid to the respondent No. 3 vide voucher dated 22.3.1997. All the stipulated details were given in the voucher on which respondent No. 3 put his signature after reading. The voucher receipt is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It may be mentioned here that the Cheque of Rs. 17855.40 was accepted and got encashed. When the respondent No. 3 finds that the Company was not interested to take him back in the job, he filed a Case before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.;