P.B. Bajanthri, J. - (1.) In the present petition, the petitioner-Himalaya Public School has assailed the award passed by the Labour Court dated 15.04.1994 vide Annexure P 8.
(2.) The respondent was appointed as an apprentice by paying his stipend of Rs. 650/- on 18.12.1987. The same is disputed according to the respondent-workman that he was appointed as a Clerk and in the year stipend for apprentice of Rs. 650/- is doubtful. On 23.03.1989 respondent was not allowed to discharge the duties of the post held by him. Thereafter, he has issued demand notice during the conciliation settlement was arrived and the workman was directed to report for duty on 27.04.1989 accordingly he has reported. The management sought fresh bio-data of the workman and the same was furnished by the workman. Thereafter, on 28.04.1989 the workman remained absent from duty. The version of the management is that the petitioner did not work even on 27.04.1989 and he remained absent from 28.04.1989. In the meanwhile, the workman had submitted an application under Section 33C(2) regarding disputed wages that he had worked for overtime since he was working in boarding school. In this background, petitioner's services were dispensed. Reference No. 492 of 1992 was placed before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. The Labour Court framed the following issues:- Whether the termination of services of Shri Raj Mukut Singh is justified and in order If not, to what relief he is entitled The labour Court held that the respondent-workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service with 50% back wages. Thus, the petitioner aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court dated 15.04.1994, presented this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that evidence on record has not been taken into consideration by the Presiding Officer who passed the Award. It was further submitted that there is a non-application of mind for the reasons that evidence adduced by the Management has not been discussed even though it is stated in Para 7 of the Award. There is no finding in the Award. It was also submitted that the Labour Court erred in granting 50% back wages to the respondent-workman since the workman has not made out a case before the Labour Court that he is an unemployed and also in the absence of pleading to that effect workman is not entitled for 50% back wages. In support of non-consideration of evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1964(5) SCR 64 titled as Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others (Para 7). In so far as grant of back wages, in the absence of plea taken by the workman he relied on decision of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 5 SCC 124 titled as Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and another (para 6). In view of these contentions, the Award dated 15.04.1994 passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.;