Suresh Kumar vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana & Anr.

Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and Another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing of the impugned Award dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the reference was decided against the petitioner and the relief of reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits was declined.

As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner-workman claimed to have worked as a Lohar Mistry with respondent No.2-management from 01.04.2003 to 20.04.2008 at a monthly salary of Rs.4,700/-. His case before the learned Tribunal was that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 21.04.2008 without notice, charge-sheet, domestic inquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The workman also pleaded that he had remained unemployed since his alleged termination and that, while juniors to him were retained in service, new workers had been employed by the management, thereby entitling him to reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits. The case of respondent No.2-management, however, was that the petitioner had never been terminated and had worked only intermittently from 01.08.2005 to 19.04.2008, after which he absented himself from duty. It was further pleaded that on 15.07.2009, the workman received Rs.4,500/- towards full and final settlement and executed the requisite receipt, voucher and declaration acknowledging the same. The management also contended that the workman had remained gainfully employed thereafter and was not entitled to any relief. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues, inter alia, as to whether the petitioner had himself left the employment of respondent No.2-management after receiving all his dues in full and final settlement, whether the termination of his services was justified and in order and, if not, to what relief he was entitled. The parties thereafter led their respective evidence. The workman examined himself and also examined WW-2 Sudama Pandey, his then authorized representative, whereas the management examined MW-1 Anil Kumar, Manager of respondent No.2-management.

Vide the impugned Award dated 26.10.2016, the learned Tribunal held that the workman had himself left the employment of the management after receiving his dues in full and final settlement on 15.07.2009 and executing documents Ex.M/1 to Ex.M/3. The learned Tribunal, therefore, held that the services of the workman had not been illegally terminated by the management and consequently denied him any relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned Award dated 26.10.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the alleged settlement relied upon by the learned Tribunal was neither proved in accordance with law nor disclosed by the management at the relevant stage of the proceedings, and the documents relied upon by the management were disputed by the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner had worked continuously for more than 240 days and that his services were terminated without notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Tribunal, it is argued, failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record and ignored material circumstances relating to the alleged settlement and termination. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the impugned Award is legal and well reasoned and requires no interference. It is further submitted that the reference was rightly decided against the petitioner, and that he had concealed material facts before the learned Tribunal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

The principal challenge of the petitioner is to the finding recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal that he had voluntarily left the employment of respondent No.2-management and had subsequently received his dues in full and final settlement.

A perusal of the impugned Award shows that the learned Tribunal considered the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both parties, including the testimony of the workman and WW-2 Sudama Pandey, as also the evidence of MW-1 Anil Kumar and documents including attendance and wage registers, produced by the management, showcasing that the workman had remained absent from duty after 19.04.2008, besides noting the fact that the workman had admitted his signatures on the relevant settlement documents, to arrive at the finding of voluntary abandonment. Though the petitioner claimed that the amount received under the settlement had subsequently been returned to the management, the learned Tribunal observed that no receipt or other documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said assertion. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had himself left the employment and that his services had not been illegally terminated by the management.

This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards of Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact, nor does it re-appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on a fair appreciation of the evidence on record and call for no interference.

Moreover, once the finding of the learned Tribunal that the workman had voluntarily left the employment and had received his dues in full and final settlement is based on evidence and is not shown to be perverse, the contention regarding violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not survive for consideration.

On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Award dated 26.10.2016 warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.