N K SHARMA & SONS Vs. KRISHNA CHOWDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 30th December 2011 passed in Reference No. 24 of 2009 by the Labour Court, Bangalore is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) Award is passed under Section 10(1)(c) & (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) directing the second party the petitioner herein to reinstate the first party into service with 25% back-wages. The grounds urged by the Management second party is that as per the award, the respondent was directed to go and report to the related factory at Ayoor in Tamilnadu. Accordingly, he has been addressed a letter to that effect dated 07th December, 201 The workman submits that he went to Tamilnadu and reported for duty, but he was not given any job and was made to sign on blank papers for which he has refused which resulted in not permitting him to enter the premises. Thereafter, with great difficulty he came over to Bangalore and through the Management again he requested the management to give appointment at Doddaballapur Unit, Bangalore. It is submitted that the petitioner being a Contractor working under the Management and they are not in a position to install or put the respondent in the same premises since the workman himself has admitted the fact that he had committed the misconduct. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not in a position to request the Management to reinstate the second party. It is further submitted that the Workers Union on behalf of the Management has addressed a letter on 17th January 2013 that as per the Court order, we are still ready and willing to depute to our Reddypaliyam unit if the person is interested to come and work". Even thereafter, the respondent first party has shown no interest. Under the circumstance, the unwilling party may not be suitable to any job in any discipline. In support of his submissions the learned counsel referred the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 3589 of 2009 disposed of on 24th March 2014 between Welcast Steels Ltd. v. Bangalore Newspapers Employees Union wherein it is held that in cases of this nature, where the workers refuse or not willing to join the places where they have been posted, they are not entitled for back-wages. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent in this case is also not entitled for any back-wages. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court initially held that the enquiry held against the workman is fair and proper and proceeded to record evidence on behalf of the management and also the first party. The evidence of the first party, as discussed at paragraph No. 16 of the order that he has also deposed that even if the second party is ready to him back to work and depute him to some other factory, but yet he is not ready to go to other factory to work. Further, in his cross-examination dated 09th August 2011, at paragraph 14, he has deposed that *** vernacular omitted.

(3.) This piece of evidence of the first party, as it is discussed by the Labour Court at paragraph No. 16, goes to show that the second party is not willing to go work and in the place and he is ready and is unwilling to work.