Sh. Krishana Polytechnic and Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Another

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—When this matter came up for preliminary hearing on 10.9.2012 the operation of the impugned award dated 15.2.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala was stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). The management-institution took back the workman in its service on 08.11.2012 on its own volition. The principal argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court was that educational institutions are not covered within the amended definition of the term ''industry''. However, the amendment sought to be carried out in the Act in 1982 remained a dead letter, therefore, resort would have to had to the law laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, . The petitioner falls in the definition.

Having taken the workman back in service on 08.11.2012, a Court query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners on 21.01.2013 whether the workman was being paid on re-induction the last drawn wages or current wages payable to the workman''s counterparts in service of the management, to which the answer was in the negative. The workman is being paid wages last drawn by him on the date of termination.

On merits, the finding of the Labour Court is that the period served by the workman under employment of the petitioners as a Peon was from January 2007 to 9.5.2009. In defence of the order of termination, the case set up by the management was that the workman had himself left service and absented from duty from 9.5.2009 onwards. If he had absented from duty on 9.5.2009, no proof is forthcoming from record.

MW-1 Pankaj Goyal deposed in his cross-examination that on 08.05.2009 instead of marking the presence of the workman in the attendance register, red lines were drawn and neither the letters ''P'' (present) nor ''A'' (absent) were written on the register against the workman''s name. The plea of voluntary absence from duty has remained unsubstantiated. The defence of the management set up through MW-1 fell when it was imputed that the workman had come to work under influence of liquor and a verbal explanation was sought from him. If this was the motive and intention behind cessation of service then no enquiry was held. During the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court, attendance register prior to January 2009 was not produced. A finding has been returned by the Labour Court that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination. The Labour Court has not vocalized violation of Section 25-F of the Act in the impugned award but an inference of violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F can be drawn as emanating from the pleadings. It is also not disputed that provident fund contributions were regularly deducted from the salary of the workman. The Labour Court has awarded reinstatement but moulded the relief of back-wages and held the workman entitled to only 50% thereof. The demand notice was served within three days of the termination. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Labour Court warranting interference and would dismiss this petition. Since the respondent-workman is in the service of the petitioner-Management since 8.11.2012 it is needless to add that he would be entitled to current wages paid to his counterpart already in service of the management.