High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ghanshyam Das v. Labour Court-I Ghaziabad And Another - WRIT - C No. 5231 of 1999  RD-AH 7368 (23 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5231 of 1999
Ghanshyam Das Versus Labour Court (I) U.P Ghaziabad and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against award dated 3.4.1998 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court (I) U.P Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 80 of 1994. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of employer respondent No.2, Pal Industries Noida terminating the services of its employee petitioner with effect from 8.7.1991 was valid or not.
It was admitted by the management that petitioner was working with them for about 12 years i.e. since 1.7.1979. The case of the management was that on 6.7.1991 some altercation took place between the workman and engineer concerned and thereafter workman abandoned his duty and the job and that three letters were written by the management in July 1991, one each in September and October 1991 and 2 in December 1991 and one in February 1992 to the workman to join the duty but he did not turn up.
Labour court held that workman voluntarily abandoned the job. Workman had placed reliance upon a letter of Labour Enforcement Officer dated 30.12.1991, copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Labour court in the impugned award thoroughly discussed the said letter and found that firstly said letter was not proved and secondly even from the said letter it was not clear that Labour Enforcement Officer took the workman to the factory and asked the management to let him join. Labour Court recorded the finding that workman had abandoned the job.
I do not find any such error in the said findings which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, on compassionate ground the court asked the learned counsel for employer respondent No.2 as as to whether employer could agree to pay a nominal amount as compensation to the workman even though management was not at all at fault. Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the employer very fairly accepted the suggestion of the court and offered to pay Rs.10000/- to the workman as compensation. Accordingly the said amount of Rs.10000/- must be paid to the workman within three months.
Learned counsel for the workman petitioner has argued that during the period when he worked with respondent No.2 his EPF was deducted and the said amount has not been paid. In case EPF was deducted from the petitioner's salary then the said amount alongwith employer's contribution as required under law shall also be paid to the workman within three months. If the said amount has been remitted to the Provident Fund Commissioner, the authority concerned shall pay the amount to the workman In that regard petitioner may at once approach the Provident Fund Commissioner concerned .
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.