The Management, M.S. Mani Nadar, Proprietor, Meenakshi Hardware Stores and The Management, M. Veeramani, Meenakshi Hardware Stores vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and N. Murugan

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The appellant Management having unsuccessfully challenged the award dated 27th July, 1994 passed by Labour

Court, Madurai, in I.D. No.264/90, preferred the writ appeal against the order passed by learned single Judge.

According to the appellant, the 2nd respondent herein was working under his wife, Pushpammal, being a proprietary concern and after her

death, the same was closed. During the life time of his wife Pushpammal, the 2nd respondent suddenly left the service on 20th Jan., 1990 on his

own accord. Subsequently, he filed a false claim that he was dismissed from service without any charge or enquiry and raised an industrial dispute

u/s 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, registered as I.D. No.264/90, which was allowed by learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, by

impugned award.

Further case of the appellant is that the management of Meenakshi Hardware Store was closed and the 2nd respondent having left the service

voluntarily on 20th Jan., 1990, the dispute as raised was not maintainable. Learned Presiding Officer should have rejected the claim as the 2nd

respondent was gainfully employed as a commission agent and having an income over Rs.1,000/= per month.

We have heard the parties and also noticed the award and the evidence on record, including the statement of the witnesses.

The submission as was made on behalf of the appellant that there was no evidence to suggest that the service of the 2nd respondent was

terminated, cannot be accepted in view of the evidence on record as noticed by the learned single Judge. Before the Labour Court, apart from the

oral evidence of the workman, who examined himself as W.W.1, the other witness, W.W.2 (Ponnaiya Pillai) was examined. According to W.W.2,

in regard to termination of services of the workman, a panchayat was held in which the management agreed to and conceded to the request of the

workman. It further appears that even before the Labour Officer - Conciliation Officer, it was agreed upon by the management that the workman

will be allowed to join the service of the management. Taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence, a clear finding of fact having been arrived

at by the Labour Court, as affirmed by learned single Judge, we find no ground to reverse such finding of fact in this writ appeal. There being no

merit, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.