Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner Ram Lal challenging the award dated 25.05.1996 passed by the Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, in Case No. L.C.R. 50/95 (352/90). The Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for short, 'the Labour Court') by aforesaid award, has answered the industrial dispute referred to it on the question whether action of the respondent No. 2 - M/s. Shree Rajasthan Iron Foundry, Pushakar Road, Ajmer (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent -management') in removal of petitioner workman from service was legal and valid and if not, what relief the workman was entitled to?, in favour of the respondent -management and declined to grant any relief to petitioner -workman. Hence this writ petition. The petitioner -workman was appointed as Ministry in the Rajasthan Iron Foundry on 03.11.1986. The petitioner -workman worked with all sincerity and devotion to duty. Apart from regular working hours, the petitioner -workman also used to work in odd hours. In February, 1989, his basic salary was Rs. 865/ - and total emoluments were about Rs. 2000/ - per month. He was not being paid for the overtime. According to the petitioner -workman, he came in contact with the office bearers of the Engineering Laghu Udhyog Employees Union (for short, 'the employees union'). He tried to organize the workers of the Laghu Udhyog Employees Industries and the workers of the respondent No. 2. When the respondent -management came to know about his efforts, it became annoyed. Shankar S/o Rameshwar Fatehpuria, owner of respondent No. 2, called the petitioner -workman on 14.02.1989, and asked him to disassociate from the union activities. When the petitioner workman refused to oblige, he threatened him and finally ordered him not to come on duty from next date. Thus the oral termination was thrust upon the petitioner -workman from 15.02.1989. The petitioner -workman submitted a complaint to the Conciliation Officer on 11.03.1989, who issued a notice to respondent -management. The respondent -management filed reply thereto on 30.05.1989 denying therein oral termination of the petitioner -workman. The respondent -management rather asserted that the petitioner -workman on his own has left the job and therefore he is not entitled to any notice pay or compensation etc. as per Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act'), During pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the respondent -management also initiated proceedings against the petitioner -workman under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alleged breach of peace. However, no notice of any such proceedings was ever served upon the petitioner -workman. The proceedings in any case came to an end after expiry of six months.
(2.) IN response to the statement of claim filed by the petitioner -workman asserting the aforesaid fact, the respondent -management filed reply thereto and took the stand that since the workman has left the job at his own, there is no question of his reinstatement. However, the respondent -management moved an application seeking amendment to its reply so as to add the ground that it has lost the confidence in the workman, therefore, he was not entitled to reinstatement. The petitioner -workman filed his own affidavit in support of his claim filed his own affidavit and was subjected to cross -examination. Shri Rameshwar, owner of respondent -factory and his son Shri Shankar and their employee Sita Ram filed their affidavits in support of the case of the respondent -management. Learned labour Court answered the reference in terms indicated above.
(3.) SHRI Rajiv Bandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner -workman, has argued that the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from perversity inasmuch as findings recorded by the labour Court are contrary to the evidence on record. The Labour Court has illegally recorded a finding that delay of three weeks on the part of the workman in approaching the Conciliation Officer lends credence to the plea of the management that he abandoned the job on his own, and that it was not a case of removal. The Labour Court has also drawn an inference of the fact of filing of the proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., whereas it was not proved whether any notice was served upon the petitioner -workman and all that was sought to be proved was that notice was issued to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner -workman submitted that complaint filed under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was nothing but a ploy adopted by the management to frustrate claim of the petitioner -workman for reinstatement. The respondent -management had made used of two of their workers to the workman and they were bound to toe the line of the management because they were their employees. It was keeping in view that strategy that the management in their reply before the Conciliation Officer alleged that the petitioner -workman had stopped other workers from coming to the factory. In fact, the management did not take kindly to the efforts made by the petitioner -workman to organize the workers and form a union.;