- (1.) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the award dated 10.9.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman/respondent No. 2 and he has been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service with 50% backwages. Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management, would submit that respondent No. 2 had left the job of his own volition and had submitted his resignation on 20.8.2007, which was accepted on 26.8.2007. It has been argued that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the resignation letter being forged and fabricated is perverse inasmuch as no evidence in the nature of a report of any handwriting expert nor any independent witness had been produced to discharge the onus which was on the workman who had denied the existence of such document. In furtherance of such submission, it has been contended that the workman in his cross-examination had himself admitted that he had left the job and by virtue of such admission, it was clearly discernible that his services had never been terminated and rather he had resigned from service.
(2.) It has also been argued that the Tribunal has erred in drawing an adverse inference against the employer by observing that the attendance record from 9.4.2007 to 20.8.2007 had not been produced. In this regard, learned counsel would advert to the application dated 26.8.2011 preferred by the workman before the Tribunal whereby the attendance record from 16.7.2005 to 7.4.2007 only had been sought for. It is contended that the record pertaining to the period mentioned in the application had been duly produced before the Tribunal. Further submission raised is that while recording a finding as regards non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'), the Tribunal has not taken the relevant period into consideration i.e. twelve preceding months from the date of acceptance of resignation dated 26.8.2007. In this regard, it has been argued that the workman had absented continuously after 7.4.2007 and subsequently submitted his resignation on 20.8.2007 and which was duly accepted on 26.8.2007. It is also the pleaded case of the Management in the instant petition that the workman is an incorrigible and unscrupulous person who used to create problems for the Management and co-workers and as such, he cannot be retained in service as his very presence would spoil the congenial atmosphere and working of the petitioner-Company.
(3.) By way of last resort, an argument has also been raised that even if there be violation of Section 25-F of the Act, reinstatement could not have been directed as a matter of routine and more so, in view of the fact that the workman had to his credit, length of service of only two years approximately and a considerable period of time having elapsed since the alleged date of termination. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & another, 2009 3 SCT 790and B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal, 2014 3 SCT 49as also recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another, 2014 4 SCT 514.;