Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition seeks to challenge the award of Labour Court, Jaipur, dated 09.12.1998 by which retrenchment of respondent -workman has been held to be illegal with a direction to petitioner -management to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent -workman was engaged by petitioner -management as chowkidar on 01.07.1991. His services, as per terms of reference, were terminated on 30.04.1993, which date, as per the record of the petitioner -management, has been found to be 03.04.1993. The respondent -workman approached the conciliation officer on the same day i.e. 03.04.1993. On submission of failure report, the appropriate Government made a reference of the industrial dispute vide notification dated 17.05.1995. The Labour Court answered the reference in favour of respondent -workman. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner -management. Shri B.B.L. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner -management, submitted that respondent -workman was not appointed on regular basis. He was merely engaged by oral order on daily wage basis as labourer and not as chowkidar. His services were never terminated on 03.04.1993, as alleged by him. In fact, he voluntarily abandoned the services and stopped coming on duties. Learned Labour Court has failed to correctly appreciate the evidence put forth on the affidavits of the witnesses of the petitioner -management. Learned counsel for the petitioner -management, in this behalf, referred to the affidavits of departmental witnesses, namely, Hari Charan Gupta, Babu Lal Patni, Krishna Chandra and also the then Director of the petitioner -management (Academy) Dr. Ved Prakash. He also referred to their cross -examination. It is contended that all these witnesses stated that when the respondent -workman was discharging the duties of chowkidar in the office, theft of coolers took place. He was required to discharge his duties from 03.04.1993 in day time, but the respondent -workman refused to do so on the premise that he was additionally earning a sum of Rs. 40/ - per day by working as beldar at private construction work and that he was prepared to work in day time as chowkidar with the petitioner -management only if he is paid additional sum of Rs. 40/ - per day.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that a note -sheet was prepared to this effect and placed before the Director of the Academy, who thereupon observed that the remuneration be paid to the respondent -workman as per the Rules. It was also mentioned that when the respondent -workman was required to discharge the duties in day time, the respondent -workman had bluntly refused and stated that the management should make alternative arrangement. The note -sheet referred to in the statement of the departmental witnesses as also in the statement of the Director the Academy, was exhibited and produced in evidence before the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court has illegally declined to accept the same. It has completely ignored the same and disbelieved the version of so large number of witnesses and preferred to accept the solitary evidence of the respondent -workman. It is submitted that respondent -workman was getting only sum of Rs. 22/ - per day from the petitioner -management and at that time the wages for daily labourer in construction work was Rs. 40/ - per day, this therefore was direct loss to him and naturally he insisted on assigning night duties to him in order to enable him to work in the day time as freelance labourer.;