State of U.P. and Anr. vs Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Varanasi & Anr.

S. Harkauli, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.The impugned order in this petition is the Award of the Labour Court, by which it has held that the termination of services of Respondent No. 2 with effect from 111987 was contrary to law and has directed reinstatement with full back wages.

The case of the petitioner was that they had not terminated the services of Respondent No. 2 but after 111987 the Respondent No. 2 on his own stopped coming to work. On the other hand the case of Respondent No. 2 that his services has been terminated with effect from 111987. In support of the findings in favour of the workman the Labour Court has held that the Respondent No. 2''s services must have been terminated because of the two reasons. (1) That the workman has deposed on oath that he has been removed from service and despite sufficient opportunity this has not been rebutted by producing any officer in evidence and (2) secondly because low paid workman is not likely to quit the work. While the second ground, mentioned above, is pure conjecture, the first ground should have been considered along with the facts mentioned in Para 5 of the main Award. In Para 5 it has been stated by the Labour Court itself that the employer had filed muster roll the months of January and February 1987, in which the Respondent No. 2 has been shown as absent.

The muster roll were important piece of evidence on record having material bearing on the issue because if the services of the Respondent No. had been terminated with effect from 111987, his name would not have been found on the muster roll of January and February 1987 and he would not have been shown absent. The fact that the name of Respondent No. 2 has been kept on the muster roll after 111987 i.e. the date of alleged termination and the fact that he was marked absent, itself indicate that the services of Respondent No. 2 has not been terminated, but the Respondent No. 2 had not been coming to attend his duties. This fact by itself may not be conclusive evidence but nevertheless it was the piece of evidence of having material bearing and, therefore, this should have been considered by the Labour Court while giving reasons while holding that the Respondent No. 2 had not quit on his own, but has been terminated from service.

In view of the above discussions the impugned Award dated 2961995 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for recording finding afresh on the question whether with effect from 1187 the petitioner had terminated the services of Respondent No. 2 or whether the Respondent No. 2 on his own had stopped attending his duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought permission to lead further evidence on the issue and the Labour Court will permit the parties to lead evidence.

In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.