Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the award dated 06.02.2018 published and pronounced on 03.05.2018 by Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No.03/2014 by which the respondent-workman has been held to be entitled for compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs is under challenge.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a newspaper establishment where it publishes in Hindi a daily newspaper by the name of Sanmarg. The respondent-workman has entered into service but he remained unauthorized absent by abandoning his services but he has filed an application on 25.04.2014 before the Labour Court, Ranchi alleging iter alia therein that he was appointed in Sanmarg Newspaper on a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month as assured to him which is contrary to the recommendation made by the Mazithia Commission but he has been paid lesser amount and as such is entitled to wages according to Mazithia Wage Board Recommendation, further it has been alleged that his services was terminated without notice, charge-sheet and show cause whereupon he complaint to the Deputy Labour Commissioner who in turn has directed to move before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, in pursuance thereof, he has filed petition before the Labour Court which was registered as Reference Case No.03/2014 treating to be an industrial dispute and vide order dated 01.07.2014 it has been admitted and the dispute has been decided partly in favour of the petitioner-management and partly in favour of the respondent-workman since the Labour Court has denied the reinstatement in favour of the respondent-workman, however, has passed order of compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs which has been questioned by the petitioner-management in the present writ petition inter alia on the ground that the finding suffers from perversity. The procedure as laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947) has not been followed and without appreciating the factual aspect, more particularly, that it is a case of abandonment since the respondent-workman has left the service on getting other lucrative job in daily newspaper namely Dainik Jagran, therefore, it is not a case of retrenchment and no evidence has been led in this regard but without appreciating the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the order of compensation has been passed, therefore, the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vijay S. Sathaye vs. Indian Airlines Limited and Ors., 2013 10 SCC 253 and Manju Saxena vs. Union of India and Anr., 2019 2 SCC 628.
(3.) This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and after going across the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the findings recorded by the Labour Court has gathered therefrom that the respondent-workman has been engaged in services of the petitioner-management and has been appointed by virtue of an order issued in this regard on 21.05.2009 (Annexure-7) and from its perusal it is evident that he has been appointed as Reporter Ranchi edition of Sanmarg Hindi daily published by Sanmarg, Jharkhand Media Private Limited, Ranchi which was initially for the period of one year on contractual basis from 2nd of May, 2009 as per the terms and conditions detailed below which is being referred hereunder as:- JUDGEMENT_19_LAWS(JHAR)4_2019_1.html sanmargjharkhand@gmail.com ;