AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Jena, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (workman). He submits, impugned is award dated 25th November, 2014 made by the Industrial Tribunal answering the reference in favour of the management. There is no dispute that his client tendered continuous service. He was retrenched. The management made a show to effect that his client had resigned. His client did not do so. He submits further, the management was in a superior position and had called upon him to sign a voluntary resignation letter, which he did on protest. It was a clear case of retrenchment. Furthermore, alleged full and final settlement at ₹16,500/- and ₹1,750/- to aggregate ₹18,250/- was never paid to him. He seeks interference.
Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of opposite party (management). He submits, there were two vouchers duly signed by petitioner to acknowledge receipt of the aggregate sum in full and final settlement. This full and final settlement happened because he had duly voluntarily resigned. The award was made upon hearing the parties and on appreciation of the evidence tendered. The writ petition is a belated challenge. There should be no interference, more so because the establishment has since closed down.
The industrial dispute was referred by reference letter dated 27th July, 2012. We extract the schedule from impugned award and reproduce it below.
“Whether the termination of services of Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo, Ex-Store Keeper w.e.f.27.09.2003 by the management of M/s. Ashoka Allied Industries, NH-6, Madhupatna, Cuttack is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief Sri Sahoo is entitled to?”
Obviously the controversy related to contention urged by the management that the workman had voluntarily resigned.
In dealing with the controversy, it appears from impugned award, the document of voluntary resignation was not tendered before the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded in a void. It did not direct its mind to the controversy.
There is a supplement to the main controversy of voluntary resignation, which is full and final settlement effected between the parties. Two vouchers were tendered, each bearing signature of the workman, to account for the aggregate sum management says, it paid to the workman in cash. On query from Court Mr. Jena submits, procedure was for documents evidencing payment to first being signed, whereafter the payments were made. The vouchers were given to his client to sign. He signed them but did not receive any payment.
Regarding the supplementary controversy, the workman urging in the negative, to be that he was not paid in cash, he cannot prove. The management had the vouchers bearing signature of the workman. They were tendered and accepted as evidence of payment. The Tribunal ought to have probed further requiring the management to prove the payment, as that was the positive act, which could be proved from entries made in its accounts including cash-book.
We find the award is not based on relevant evidence and also bears illegal presumption drawn against the workman. It is set aside and quashed. The reference is restored to the Tribunal for expeditious adjudication, preferably within four months from date. Parties are required to forthwith communicate our order to the Tribunal.
The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
..……………………………..