Kishan Singh vs Chandra Printers Co. P. Ltd. and Another

Siddharth Mridul, J.—By way of the present petition the petitioner assails the Award of the Industrial Adjudicator whereby the reference made on behalf of the petitioner was negatived.

Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the workman was working as a Machine Operator since 1st July, 1987 with the management/respondent. According to the workman his last drawn salary was Rs. 4,200/- per month. The workman alleged that when legal benefits were sought by him, the management got annoyed and arbitrarily terminated his services on 9th August, 2000 without following due process of law. The workman further alleged that his earned wages from 1st August, 2000 to 9th August, 2000 were also not paid by the management. The Management contested the claim of the workman by asserting that the services of the workman were never terminated, but that the latter himself absented from work w.e.f. 1st June, 2000 without any intimation. According to the management the workman came on 7th June, 2000 to collect his salary for May, 2000 and in response to a query why he had remained absent unauthorisedly, the workman replied that owing to some domestic problem , he was unable to attend to his duties. The management had in this behalf also sent two letters to the workman asking him to report for duty but the workman did not turn up.

The Industrial Adjudicator on the pleadings of the parties, inter alia, framed the following issue:

1) Whether the claimant absented w.e.f. 01.06.2000 and failed to report for duty despite letters written to him, if so, its effect?

The Industrial Adjudicator noticed that firstly it was the case of the workman that the workman did not stop attending duty from 1.6.2000 and it was the management who terminated his services on 9th August, 2000, and that the workman worked continuously till 8th August, 2000. However, the workman conceded before the Industrial Adjudicator in his cross-examination that he did not have any proof to show that the workman worked with the management till 8th August, 2000. On the other hand the management produced the attendence register from April, 2000 to March, 2001, the payment of wages register from April, 1998 to September, 2001, besides ESI and PF record. The person, namely one Nageshwar Prashad, who used to daily mark attendance of all the employees in the register, was also tendered as Management Witness 2. The workman did not dispute the fact that Sh. Nageshwar Prashad was the concerned person, marking attendance of the employees in the register on daily basis. The only ground urged by him was that the attendance register and the wages register for April, 1999 to September, 2001 were forged and fabricated. However, the workman had admitted that the persons whose names found mention in these registers were actually the employees of the management during that period. Therefore, the workman failed to give any cogent reasons as to the basis on which he urged that the said records were fabricated. The Industrial Adjudicator noted that in the wages register the signatures of all the employees were there on revenue stamp month wise, in token of receipt of payment for any particular month against salary. The Industrial Adjudicator also noticed that interestingly the workman himself admitted that throughout his service the wages were paid to him monthwise against his signatures on the wages register. The Industrial Adjudicator also noticed that the register spans from April, 1999 to September, 2001. The Industrial Adjudicator, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was highly improbable that the management in 2004 could have fabricated these records of 1999 after forging signatures of all the employees month wise on revenue stamps. The Industrial Adjudicator also noticed that significantly the workman himself admitted that throughout his service the wages were paid to him monthwise against his signatures on the wages register. The workman further admitted his signatures on the other register for the period April, 1998 to March, 1999. The Industrial Adjudicator therefore came to the conclusion that, in his considered opinion, the plea raised by the workman is just to substantiate his defence and that the assertion of the workman did not inspire any confidence.

In this behalf the Industrial Adjudicator also noticed that the management has proved the ESI and PF returns filed for the said period as Ex.MW1/11 and Ex.MW1/12. The authenticity and genuineness of these records submitted to the government departments by the management were not challenged by the workman, and in fact there was no cross-examination in this respect, by the workman of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the Management.

Therefore, the Industrial Adjudicator agreed with the management that the workman was absent from 1st June, 2000 and did not resume his duty despite repeated requests of the management. The management in this behalf proved the letter dated 3rd September, 2000 sent to the workman, asking him to join duty, with copy to Assistant Labour Commissioner as Ex.MW1/4 to Ex.MW1/7. In the cross-examination of MW.1 although the workman did suggest that the management did not write any such letter to the workman or to Labour Inspector, but there was no suggestion on behalf of the workman that the address mentioned on the registered AD receipt and registered AD envelope Ex.MW1/5 and Ex.MW1/7 respectively was not the correct address of the workman.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner made the solitary submission that the register produced by the respondent/management was false and fabricated.

The Industrial Adjudicator also relied on the judgment of ''Trina Engineering Company (P) Ltd. v. The Secretary (Labour) and Ors. 2006 LLR 51'' where it was held that the letter sent by the management through registered post at the recorded address of the workman as given by him are sufficient to hold proper service. The workman, therefore, had failed to show that despite requests from the authorities in this behalf he had joined duty without delay. In the circumstances, the Industrial Adjudicator held that the workman having remained absent unauthorisedly w.e.f. 1.6.2000 and failed to join his duties despite directions of the management, was not entitled to any relief.

I agree with the findings arrived at by the Industrial Adjudicator. There was ample evidence before the Industrial Adjudicator to come to the conclusion that the workman had absented himself w.e.f. 1.6.2000 and failed to report for duty despite letters written to him. In this view of the matter there is no error apparent on the face of the record or perversity in the findings of the Industrial Adjudicator so as to warrant interference by this Court in this Writ Petition. In the circumstances the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.