K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the writ petition is to the order directing reinstatement by the Labour Court. The reference had been sought at the instance of several workmen in the petitioner company. At the time of trial before the Labour Court, there had been want of representation on behalf of the management and the Labour Court had observed that even the costs imposed at previous hearing was not paid. One of the workmen namely Om Parkash had given evidence that he had 5 years of service to his credit and that he had been terminated without following the statutory mandate as regards notice and compensation. He gave evidence to the effect that the factory was actually running. The Labour Court observed that this statement had not been controverted in cross -examination and thought it fit to apply the same yardstick for reinstatement for all workmen and directed reinstatement to be issued.
(2.) IN this writ petition, person contesting the petition is the 2nd respondent Sanjeev Kumar Dua represented through Senior Counsel Sh. R.P. Khosla. As regards him and several other workmen, the contention of the petitioner is that the factory had actually been managed by the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation and the Punjab State Industries Development Corporation who are the financiers and when it had become sick the workmen had been jettisoned but when a new management took over, notices had been sent to all persons including the 2nd respondent offering to take them back. The copies of notices sent to the 2nd respondent are appended as Annexures P6 and P7. After the reference was made before the Labour Court, 2nd respondent himself appears to have given a statement before the Presiding Officer withdrawing his case and there was no more dispute pending. The said document dated 24.06.1984 is also filed along with the writ petition as Annexure P9. The contention in the writ petition is that the Labour Court failed to act on the letters of withdrawal by the workmen and its dogged continuance of proceedings on the assumption that they had all subsisting grievance to be readdressed was erroneous. When there were specific documents filed and references made against 2nd respondent, one would expect a response from the 2nd respondent denying any of these submissions if they were not true. What was stated against the petitioner by the Labour Court was that the management did not appear and therefore, the assertion of one of the workman Om Parkash that he had a subsisting grievance must be taken to be true was wrongly applied even as regards the 3rd respondent who had at least surely a different case to contend with. Here was an instance of workman withdrawing his case before the Labour Court and when the management pointed before the Court that he had also been offered employment but he did not take up and later he withdrew his own reference, the Labour Court could not have proceeded to direct a reinstatement without considering the same. The assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition that go unrefuted is also a vindication of the correctness of the contention raised by the petitioner. The direction for reinstatement is erroneous and it is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.;