- (1.) This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 19600 of 2006 and 19582 of 2006 as the law points raised in both the writ petitions are identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from CWP No. 19582 of 2006.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the award rendered by the Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Hisar.
(3.) The workman had served a demand notice on 13.9.1992. Conciliation proceedings resulted into failure. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar. On appreciation of the evidence, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there is a clear violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was argued before the Labour Court that the termination of the services of the workman did not amount to retrenchment as it fell under the exception Clause under Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even before us, it has been vehemently argued by Mr. Mutneja that when the workmen came to join duty, they were found incapacitated to perform the duty. The evidence led by the Management with regard to the disability has been totally discarded. Furthermore, the ESI doctor produced by the Management did not mention about any impairment of the workman. A perusal of the award, however, clearly shows that medical examination was not conducted by the Management, when the workman claimed reinstatement. The Labour Court, in our opinion, has rightly come to the conclusion that if the Management had seriously doubted disability/physical infirmity, the workman ought to have been sent for an independent medical examination. It is not disputed before us that the retrenchment compensation was sent to the workman on 14.9.1992 with the endorsement that their services stood terminated w.e.f. 13.9.1992. It is, however, sought to be justified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman had refused to receive the retrenchment compensation which was offered to them. We do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Labour Court has given a clear finding, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record. The findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be based on evidence and this Court cannot conclude that the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and unreasonable. It is a well settled proposition of law that in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not re- appreciate the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argues that a settlement was entered into between the workman and the Management on 25.5.1992 under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman had not joined duty on the stipulated date. This point has not been raised before the Labour Court. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to permit the petitioner to now raise the same in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the aforesaid point was taken in the pleadings, but the Labour Court has not considered the same and has built a totally new case. We are unable to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel as a perusal of the award does not indicate that the point was raised by the Management before the Labour Court at the time of arguments. We are of the considered opinion that no injustice has been done to the petitioner- Management. The workman have not been ordered to be reinstated. The Management has been merely directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1.00 lac each to the workman in both the writ petitions, as the Factory was stated to have been closed. In view of the above, we find no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are dismissed.;