AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Management is petitioner challenging award dated 7th August, 2015, whereunder reinstatement and 40% of back wages were directed. The award was made on a claim lodged by the workman under section 2-A(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, on and from 25th July, 2012 the workman voluntarily abandoned his job. Without prejudice to his contention that there is no appointment nor termination letter tendered in the industrial tribunal, he submits, two registered notices were sent to the workman, respectively dated 5th August, 2012 and 26th September, 2013. While there is disclosure to show dispatch of the first notice, the second was returned unserved with remark. ‘Insufficient address hence, returned to sender’. In the circumstances, finding by the industrial tribunal that the workman’s services had been terminated, is perverse. He seeks interference.
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1.
Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 (workman). He submits, his client had been working under the management for long years. He started as a helper and learnt how to operate the machine. He became machine operator. His only wrong doing was to ask for proper wages. He was prevented from joining work on and from 25th July, 2012. He immediately lodged complaint with the Conciliation Officer. The matter could not be resolved within 45 days therefrom. In the circumstances, he duly made claim before the industrial tribunal under section 2-A(2). The tribunal tried his client’s claim on facts and came to finding that there was termination. Hence, direction for reinstatement and 40% back wages.
Absence of appointment and termination documents is irrelevant.
This is because petitioner’s own case before the tribunal and us is that the workman abandoned his job. We find from paragraph 10 in the written statement that allegation made by the management is, inter alia, the workman is forcibly occupying a quarter meant for staff of the management, without paying rent. We reproduce below a passage from paragraph 10 in the written statement.
“It is pertinent to mention here that 2nd Party/Workman till date is forcibly occupying a quarter meant for the staffs of the 1st Party/Management without paying any rent though as is reliably learnt he is gainfully employed at some other place.”
(emphasis supplied)
In the circumstances, seeking to notice the workman at his village address when all the while, it can lawfully be presumed, the workman was in the premises of the management, prevents us from looking further to enquire on perversity.
The writ petition is without merit and is dismissed.
.………………………………..