Naresh Kumar vs New Engineering Enterprise

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is a workman. He is challenging the award rendered by learned Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 332 of 2009. By the said award dated 28.07.2021, the reference made by State Government was answered against the petitioner.

It transpires that petitioner was employed with New Engineering Enterprise, B-18, Industrial Area, Roorkee. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court, Haridwar. The dispute, which was referred, is reproduced below:-

“Whether the termination of the above noted Workman by the Employer was justified or/and legal. If not, the Workman is entitled to get what relief/benefits.”

Contention of the petitioner before Labour Court was that he served as Watchman with the respondent from 26.11.1987 to 25.06.2002, however, he was removed from service without issuing charge-sheet or notice whatsoever. On the other hand, the respondent contended before Labour Court that petitioner voluntarily left service, after receiving full and final payment. Learned Labour Court formulated following three points for determination:-

“1. Whether the workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year or in twelve calendar months.

Whether workman has received full and final payment from employer.

Whether the employer has adopted the procedure as prescribed under law before the termination of.”

Regarding point no. 1, learned Labour Court recorded a finding that petitioner worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, however, finding on point no. 2 was recorded against the petitioner that he voluntarily left the work after receiving full and final payment from the employer, accordingly, point no. 3 was decided against the petitioner in view of the finding recorded on point no.2. Learned Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner by holding that petitioner’s termination from service was neither illegal nor unjustified.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that finding on point no. 2 that petitioner voluntarily left the work after receiving full and final payment is based on a cash voucher dated 13.05.2002. He further submits that petitioner’s contention before the Labour Court was that the said cash voucher is a forged document, which was not considered. He further submits that it is unbelievable that after receiving full and final payment, petitioner was permitted to work till 25.06.2002.

Submission made on behalf of the petitioner regarding finding on point no. 2 is without any substance. In his deposition before the Labour Court, petitioner has admitted his signature on the cash voucher dated 13.05.2002, therefore, his contention that the cash voucher is a forged document was rightly not accepted.

Even otherwise also, there is no documentary evidence to show that petitioner continued to serve with the respondent upto 25.06.2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a complaint made to Deputy Labour Commissioner on 25.06.2002, which is on record as Annexure No.-5 to the writ petition, in support of his contention that petitioner continued to serve upto 25.06.2002.

Perusal of the said complaint indicates that petitioner wanted his luggage, which he kept inside the factory premises, back from the employer, as due to the lock put by the employer, petitioner was not having access to his luggage. The tone and tenor of the said document reveals that petitioner had accepted severance of master-servant relationship.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the finding returned by learned Labour Court on point no. 2 is erroneous, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to learned Labour Court for recording finding on point no. 2 afresh.

The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. This Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot review or re-appreciate the evidence upon which determination of a Subordinate Court or Tribunal is based, nor this Court can correct errors of fact or even of law for substituting its own decision, as held in Shamshad Ahmad Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj reported in (2008) 9 SCC

1.

It is not the case of the petitioner that learned Labour Court has committed any jurisdictional error or any other error apparent on the face of record. After admitting his signature on the cash voucher, petitioner cannot contend that the cash voucher is forged. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of petitioner’s contention that he worked upto 25.06.2002, the finding on point no. 2 recorded by learned Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner had complained against forgery in the cash voucher to any authority competent to take action in the matter. As such the plea of forgery taken by the petitioner appears to be an afterthought.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award.

Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.