- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 08.04.2009 (Annexure P6), passed by the Labour Court, U.T.Chandigarh, whereby the workman had been held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ -, in lieu of back wages. It is also a matter of record that in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner -Management has furnished Bank guarantee to the tune of the said compensation.
(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that demand notice dated 26.02.2002 (Annexure P1) was served upon the respondent -workman, alleging that he had worked as a Turner from 01.01.1993 to 14.02.2002 with the petitioner -Management and was drawing Rs. 4600/ - per month. It was alleged that he had worked for more than 240 days and his services were terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act').
(3.) THE Management, before the Conciliation Officer, took the stand that they were ready to take back the workman but without back wages and resultantly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Chandigarh. The defence taken by the Management was that the workman had started absenting on his own and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2800/ - per month. The Insurance number, filed with the Employees State Insurance Department was also specified and it was pleaded that contribution was regularly deducted every month from his salary. The plea taken was that the workman was wanting his wages to be increased to Rs. 5000/ - per month and there was no violation of Section 25F of the Act as it was not a case of termination. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as AW1 whereas the Proprietor of the petitioner -Company, appeared as MW1. In the cross -examination of the workman, it came on record that the workman was prepared to join duties at Rs. 2800/ - per month but he must be paid wages for the intervening period @ Rs. 4600/ - which he was drawing. The Labour Court, after taking into account the evidence, came to the conclusion that the workman had joined service on 22.04.1994 and took into account the fact that he was willing to join duties @ Rs. 2800/ - per month. It was noticed that the Company had failed to produce the attendance register and thus, had withheld the best evidence. A finding was, accordingly, recorded that the offer given by the petitioner - Management was conditional and never un -conditional and the same was not a proper offer to the workman. It was also noticed that no question was put to the workman during his cross examination that he remained unemployed and was not employed since February, 2002. Accordingly, 7 years having elapsed, since the relationship between employer and employee had been severed, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was awarded as compensation.;