Arihant Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs Sh. Uma Shankar

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The writ petition impugns the award dated 14th August, 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator answering the following reference:

Whether the services of Shri Uma Shankar have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiable by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

in favour of the Respondent workman but granting the relief only of payment of lump-sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Respondent workman.

Notice of the writ petition was issued and subject to the deposit of the awarded amount in the Court, execution of the award stayed. The said amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been deposited in the Court. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

It has been enquired from the counsel for the Petitioner employer as to for how many years the Respondent workman had worked for the Petitioner employer and at what wages. The counsel for the Petitioner employer states that the Respondent workman had worked for six years and the last drawn salary was Rs. 2,100/- per month.

The Petitioner employer had contested the dispute before the Industrial Adjudicator by contending that it was the Respondent workman who had abandoned the employment. The counsel for the Petitioner employer has today also argued that abandonment is borne out from the Respondent workman having not joined duty in spite of several letters written.

It is not as if the Industrial Adjudicator has in the award not considered the said aspect. The letters stated to be written by the Petitioner employer, were stated to be sent to the Respondent workman through UPC. The Industrial Adjudicator has held that there is no proof of their service on the Respondent workman and the service could not be believed in view of the categorical statement of the Respondent workman in his evidence denying receipt of the said letters. It has also been noted that the only letter which was sent by registered post AD was admittedly received back with the postal endorsement that the addressee was not met in spite of repeated visits.

The finding returned by the Industrial Adjudicator of the Respondent workman having not abandoned the job, is a finding of fact and ordinarily findings of fact are not interfere able in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nothing has been shown that such finding of fact is perverse or not borne out from the record or unreasonable.

I have also enquired from the counsel for the Petitioner employer whether any enquiry was held by the Petitioner employer. The answer is in the negative. I have on consideration of the case law on the said aspect recently in Hindustan Associates Engineer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. K.K. Aggarwal and Others, held that abandonment is also a misconduct and an employer for terminating the services of an employee/workman on the ground of abandonment is required to hold an inquiry. In the present case, the inquiry admittedly has not been held and the order of termination on the ground of abandonment would be illegal for the said reason also.

It has been enquired from the counsel for the Respondent workman whether he has challenged or intends to challenge the award. The counsel states that no challenge has been made and no challenge will be made in future. He also states that though under the award interest was also awarded but the Respondent workman in the event of the writ petition being disposed of today will not claim any interest save the interest earned on the amount deposited in this Court.

No case for interference is made out; the writ petition is dismissed. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited in this Court together with interest earned thereon be released to the Respondent workman forthwith. Costs of litigation have already been paid.