- (1.) The judgment and order dated 16.9.2005 passed in SBCWP No. 5462/2005 instituted by the appellant to set at naught the award dated 8.12.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara in Reference Case No. 183/1999 is the subject-matter of scrutiny in the present appeal. By the decision impugned, the award has been sustained. Noticeably, in spite of service of notice of the instant appeal, the respondent-workman has not arranged for his representation. He similarly had remained unrepresented in the writ proceeding. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner. Briefly stated the essential facts are that according to the respondent-workman, he was on 10.9.1997 appointed as Supervisor under the appellant and was on leave from 3.8.1998 to 2.9.1998. When he reported for duty on 3.9.1998, the Weaving Master of the appellant-Company refused to admit him without disclosing any reason for his disengagement. In course of the conciliation proceedings, the appellant-Company on 18.9.1998 offered to take him back. However, when he reported for duty on 21.9.1998, the concerned Weaving Master pressurized him to resign and even threatened and intimidated him. In these circumstances, the respondent-workman on 24.9.1998 submitted an application before the Conciliation Officer expressing his apprehension that he may be falsely implicated in some charge by the appellant-Company and, therefore, preferred to get his dues released. He denied the allegation levelled against him that he had deliberately not reported for duty in time and, thus, had consciously abandoned his employment. In the reference that was eventually made to the learned Labour Court to determine as to whether his discontinuance on and from 3.9.1998 was valid or not, he reiterated the above stand. The appellant-Company in its written statement pleaded that the respondent-workman had been engaged as a Helper till 31.7.1998, whereafter on and from 1.8.1998, he on his own volition had preferred not to attend his duties. It claimed that though by communications dated 18.9.1998, 23.9.1998 and 8.10.1998, the respondent-workman was intimated of his absence from duties, he did neither respond thereto nor did return to work. It denied the allegation that the Weaving Master had pressurized him to resign. In course of the reference also, the appellant-Company on 8.8.2001 did in writing express its willingness to take the respondent back in service but the latter did not respond thereto.
(2.) Learned Labour Court on the basis of the materials on record, held that during the period from 10.9.1997 to 31.7.1998, the respondent-workman had rendered continuous service for over 240 days and as the mandatory requirement of section 25F of the Act had not been complied with, his ouster was illegal. It also declined to accept the plea of the appellant-Company that he had wilfully remained absent from duties. Noticing however the appellant-Company's offer to take him back in service as made on 8.8.2001, the learned Labour Court while directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman with effect from 3.9.1998, granted 50% of his back wages for the period commencing therefrom till 8.8.2001. The back wages for the period thereafter i.e. 8.8.2001 onwards, was not granted. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order, having refused to interfere with the award, the instant appeal has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Nahar, learned counsel for the appellant-Company has argued that it being more than apparent from the materials on record that the respondent-workman had voluntarily abandoned his duties and that inspite of repeated efforts, made by the appellant-Company, he had chosen not to return, he is not entitled to the protection of section 25-F of the Act and, thus, the award as well as the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside.;