God Gift Laboratories vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—M/s. God Gift Laboratories, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ''the management'') has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 11.9.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 2793 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 2 Ram Ashrey (hereinafter referred to as ''the workman'') for setting aside the award dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad, was disposed of, and the workman was directed to be reinstated in service with back-wages from the date of award till his reinstatement. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-management and going through the impugned order as well as the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In this case, the workman was appointed as Sealing Machine Operator by the management on 5.2.1994. After more than seven and half years, on 18.12.2001, abruptly, his services were illegally terminated. He got issued a demand notice on 18.2.2002. During conciliation, before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Faridabad, the parties arrived at a settlement. According to the said settlement, the workman was to be taken back in service with effect from 1.6.2002 and he was to be paid the balance wages as settled.

It is the case of the management that on 1.6.2002, the workman joined service. Immediately, on the same day, after getting wages as per the settlement, he tendered his resignation. On the other hand, the workman, while raising the industrial dispute with regard to his second termination, stated that he was allowed to join service on 1.6.2002 and was permitted to work till 12.6.2002. During that period, his signatures were obtained on a blank paper on the pretext of payment of wages due to him, which were later on converted into the alleged resignation, whereas actually he never submitted any resignation, and his services were illegally terminated.

The Industrial Tribunal, while accepting the stand taken by the management, decided the reference in its favour. The learned Single Judge, while coming to the conclusion that the Industrial Tribunal, without properly considering and appreciating the evidence available on record, has recorded an illegal and perverse finding with regard to resignation of the workman, has set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, on the following grounds.

Firstly, that the management has failed to prove that in terms of the settlement arrived at before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, the payment of wages was made to the workman. It has been observed that the record regarding payment of wages was not produced before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the same was lost, regarding which a DDR was got registered. This contention of the management was wrongly accepted by the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting this contention, has recorded detailed reasons, particularly that the said DDR was got registered only after conclusion of the evidence of the management before the Industrial Tribunal, and further that the version given in the DDR with regard to loss of the record was unbelievable. In view of this, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the management has failed to establish the payment of wages to the workman.

Secondly, the learned Single Judge found that the resignation alleged to have been tendered by the workman and produced by the management before the Industrial Tribunal appears to be a fabricated document. This issue has also been dealt by the learned Single Judge in detail, and while taking into consideration the fact that the said resignation letter is on the letter head of the management, and it has been signed at the bottom of the letter head with certain blank space, and further while observing that there was no reason for the workman to firstly join the service on 1.6.2002 and then to resign from the job on the same day, the learned Single Judge has recorded the finding against the management with regard to tendering of resignation by the workman. During the course of hearing, we have also perused the said resignation letter. Learned counsel for the appellant-management has conceded that it was scribed by an employee of the management. It does not stand to any reason that why this resignation was scribed by an employee of the management and that too on the letter head of the management itself. The spacing is also clear. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge regarding the genuineness of this document.

Thirdly, the learned Single Judge has reversed the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, while relying upon the complaint made by the workman to the Labour Inspector on 14.6.2002. According to the learned Single Judge, the observations of the Industrial Tribunal that immediately after the alleged second termination, no complaint was made to the authorities is incorrect, because immediately the workman had made complaint to the Labour Inspector.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-management tried to persuade this Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was not justified to interfere in the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. Though jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to some extent and not to be exercised as an appellate court, but it is settled law that a writ of certiorari can be issued and award of the Industrial Tribunal can be quashed, if it is shown that the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal is contrary to the material evidence available on record, or the finding recorded by it is totally perverse. In the present case, the learned Single Judge, after appreciating the evidence led before the Industrial Tribunal, has come to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the record and while deciding reference against the workman, a perverse view has been taken. The learned Single Judge, while setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, has recorded valid reasons, as discussed above. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge was justified to set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

No merit.

Dismissed.