RAM AYODHYA SINGH Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-III AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-671
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 27,2014

Ram Ayodhya Singh Appellant
VERSUS
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court -Iii And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad whereby, reference has been decided against the petitioner -workman by holding that the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') had been followed by offering one month's notice pay and other benefits as per the provisions of the Act and the workman had refused to accept the same. A perusal of the file would go on to show that the petitioner was appointed as a Boring Machine Operator from 17.05.1999 onwards. He was retrenched from service on 30.09.2008 and was asked to collect his full and final amount from the Accounts Department while leaving the factory in the evening and it was mentioned that in case he fails to collect the said amount, the same would be sent to him by post. A perusal of Annexure P -6 would show that 3 cheques dated 30.09.2008 for sum of Rs. 65,308/ -, Rs. 28,038/ - and Rs. 33,588/ - were mentioned in the said communication which was also sent to the Labour Officer, Faridabad.
(2.) THE workman issued a demand notice under Section 2 -A of the Act on 15.10.2008 taking the plea that in the first week of October, when he went to attend his duty, he was Stopped on the factory gate and his services were terminated without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. The respondent -management, before the Labour -cum - Conciliation Officer, brought forward the retrenchment notice dated 30.09.2008 and pleaded that he did not collect his full and final amount on that day and on the very next day, the cheques were sent through registered post, which were received back undelivered. It was further averred that the management was ready to deliver the undelivered cheques of full and final payment to the workman.
(3.) IN the rejoinder to the said comments, plea taken was that no prior permission had been obtained for closing the machine shop and the provisions of the Act stood violated since other co -workers continued to work.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.