- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner institution seeks to assail the legality and validity of the award dated 18.8.2000 (Exhibit-8) passed by the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur in Labour Case No. 18/1994 whereby the reference made to the Tribunal at the instance of the respondent workman was accepted in part and while refusing reinstatement in service the respondent was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 70,000/-.
(2.) The respondent workman was employed as a labour in the petitioner institution. He was removed from service on 20.4.1992 on which he submitted an application to the Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer on 22.6.1992 alleging that he had been forced to resign from the petitioner institution. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Udaipur with a question of reference as to whether the removal of the respondent workman from service by the petition institution on 20.4.1992 was legal or not and the relief to which the workman was entitled?
(3.) The respondent employee filed a statement of claim in which it was specifically pleaded that his termination was made without following the due process of law and amounted to retrenchment and that the resignation which was taken from him on 20.4.1992 was forcible and was procured under coercion. The petitioner institution submitted a reply to the statement of claim denying the allegations levelled by the workman. However, it is relevant to mention here that in reply to statement of claim, the petitioner institution did not aver that the resignation submitted by the workman was ever accepted. The Tribunal examined the witnesses produced on behalf of the workman and the petitioner institution and arrived at the following findings after examination of the evidence available on record. 1. That there was no reason for the workman to have submitted the resignation and upon appreciation of the evidence available on record concluded that the resignation was procured by pressure and coercion. 2. That the employer failed to give evidence to show that the resignation was accepted or acknowledged. Learned Labour Court held that the termination of the workman from service was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further held that the employee failed to prove that he was out of job during the period of 8 years which lapsed between the submission of statement of claim to the date of award. Accordingly the Tribunal refused to direct reinstatement of the workman in service and instead awarded 50% of accrued wages to the workman between the date of reference to the date of award. The aforesaid amount was quantified at Rs. 70,000/- with interest @ 12% if the payment was not made within a period of two months from the date of award. The petitioner institution has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition assailing the said award dated 18.8.2000.;