- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-4) whereby, the respondent-workman has been held entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages @ 4,070/- per month from the date of his termination i.e. 01.01.2010 till his reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits.
(2.) The case of the workman in his demand notice dated 06.11.2009 was that his services had been unlawfully terminated w.e.f. 08.10.2009 and he had joined as a Machine Operator on 26.06.1991 and accordingly, he claimed reinstatement.
(3.) On the matter being referred to the Labour Court, the relationship of the employer-employee was also denied. On the basis of the evidence led by the workman Shiv Kumar as PW-1 and the statement of Sh. Om Parkash Yadav, the Managing Director of the petitioner-company, who was examined as RW-1, the Labour Court held that the documents which have been relied upon by the workman in the form of salary certificate, declaration showed that there was relationship of the workman with the petitioner concern. The plea that he was not working with the petitioner-company was rejected on the ground that even an argument had been raised that the workman was not willing to continue due to domestic problems. The said document allegedly executed by the workman is dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure P-1). Perusal of the same would go on to show that even if it is to be taken as signed by the workman, gratuity, leave encashment and other dues were to be paid. There is nothing on record to show that such dues had been paid when the workman had left on his own. Thus, it is clear that contradictory plea had been taken. On the one hand, the relationship is denied and on the other hand, it has been averred that he had left on his own. In such circumstances, it is clear that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was rightly found to be in violation of the Section 25-F of the Act. The workman had put in 8 years of service and the Labour Court, as per Ex. P-5, held that he was drawing Rs. 4,070/- as salary per month and has accordingly directed reinstatement and a factual finding has been recorded which is not liable to be interfered with.;