Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OM PARKASH versus PRESIDING OFFICER,INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Om Parkash v. Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal-cu - CWP-12131-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5979 (25 August 2006)

1 C.W.P. No. 12131 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 12131 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 7.8.2006

***

Om Parkash

..PETITIONER

VS.

The Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Hisar & Anr.

..RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. NARANG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

Present:- Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

***

JUDGMENT:

The prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of award dated 14.9.2005 passed by the Labour Court whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman has been dismissed.

Facts emerge out from the petition may be noticed.

Initially the petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills, Bhuna on 13.2.1992 as a Carpenter on daily wages. He worked upto 22.11.1993 when his services were terminated. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award dated 25.3.1998 ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits including 50% back wages.

During the pendency of the above-said reference before the 2 C.W.P. No. 12131 of 2006

Labour Court, the petitioner, joined respondent No.2 as Carpenter on daily wages. He worked there upto January 1996. Thereafter, his services were also terminated there. However, he was reinstated into service in June 1998 as a result of compromise entered between the parties.

Since the petitioner wanted to continue with Bhuna Sugar Mills, for implementation of the said award dated 25.3.1998, he approached this Court by way of filing a petition, which was disposed of on 31.1.2001 with a direction to Bhuna Sugar Mills to implement the above-said award dated 25.3.1998. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills on 4.4.2001 claiming to have taken leave from competent authority of respondent No.2. Due to some circumstances, the petitioner submitted resignation to Bhuna Sugar Mills on 6.4.2001, which was accepted on 8.5.2001. The petitioner was relieved on 8.5.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner when reported for duties on 9.5.2001 to respondent-department, he was informed that his services were terminated on 18.4.2001 on account of abandonment of service .

The said action of the respondent-department was challenged by the petitioner by serving a demand notice. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The respondent-department contested the claim of the petitioner. Their stand was that the petitioner abandoned his services from the respondent-department in order to get the benefit of the award dated 25.3.1998 joined at Bhuna Sugar Mills. He concealed all these things from the respondent-department. Therefore, his services were rightly terminated.

The Labour Court, vide the impugned award, as noticed above, dismissed the claim of the petitioner

It is only due to this, the petitioner-workman has challenged the 3 C.W.P. No. 12131 of 2006

award dated 14.9.2005 through the instant writ petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper book as also the impugned award.

The only controversy is whether it is a case of termination or abandonment of service. The factual position in this case is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that by virtue of the award dated 25.3.1998 and with the intervention of this Court, the petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills on 4.4.2001. It is also not in dispute that on that day itself, he was working with the present respondent-department. It is not his case that by virtue of the terms of his employment with the respondent-department, he was permitted to seek another employment even during continuance of his service with the present respondent-department. A workman cannot have employment at two different places at one point of time. The only argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills with the prior permission of the competent authority of the respondent-department. However, the argument is not convincing. A bare perusal of the award shows that the petitioner-workman admitted in cross- examination that he had obtained leave from the respondent-department for resuming duties in Bhuna Sugar Mills where he subsequently resigned, after receiving back wages. He was thus, heavily burdened to prove the factum of obtaining leave from the competent authority of respondent-department.

However, no such evidence could be produced. The petitioner took a somersault by pleading that he had taken the verbal approval from the Junior Engineer and Sub Division Engineer. Then it was required from him to examine either of them to substantiate the said stand. However, for the reasons best known to him, he neither examined the Junior Engineer or the 4 C.W.P. No. 12131 of 2006

Sub Divisional Engineer. Therefore, he could not prove that he took adequate approval to resume duties with Bhuna Sugar Mills. Rather a bare perusal of the letter dated 18.4.2001 (Annexure P-1) written by the respondent-department to the petitioner intimating him that he joined Bhuna Sugar Mills on 4.4.2001 without informing to this office and thus, is being treated as absent and since he has joined Bhuna Sugar Mills, he will be treated as having left the job at his own will, is indicative of the fact that he had not taken any adequate approval or permission from the respondent- department to join with Bhuna Sugar Mills on 4.4.2001. In the backdrop of these facts, the Labour Court has rightly opined that the conduct of the workman in resuming duties with Bhuna Sugar Mills tantamounts to abandonment of service under the present respondent-department. There was no necessity to comply with the procedure laid down under Section 25- F of the Act.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court has rightly declined the indulgence. We do not find any infirmity with the award passed by the Labour Court, which is just and reasoned.

Accordingly, the petition being without any merit is dismissed.

(ARVIND KUMAR)

JUDGE

August 3,2006 (J.S. NARANG)

Jiten JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.