AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Both these writ petitions bearing Nos. 15124 and 8095 of 1999 are arising out of the same award dated May 18, 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana and they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
Ram Surat thereinafter referred to as the workman) was employed with M/s. Nicks India Tools, Ludhiana thereinafter referred to as the employer). He was employed on August 13, 1981 and he worked upto the year 1993. According to the workman, his services were terminated on May 12, 1993, while according to the employer, the workman himself left the job on April 22, 1993 after taking all his dues vide receipt dated April 22,1993, Annexure P-1, which is attached with the writ petition no. 15124 of 1999. The workman raised a demand which was referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana. The Labour Court, Ludhiana, vide its impugned award ordered reinstatement of the workman with 25% of the back wages. In Civil Writ Petition No. 15124 of 1999, the employer has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Ludhiana, against reinstatement of the workman. In Civil Writ Petition No. 8095 of 1999, the workman has agitated against the restriction of the back wages to 25% only.
Regarding the question of termination, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the employer that the workman himself has left the job and there was no question of terminating his services. He has relied on the receipt dated April 22, 1993, Annexure P-1. Counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that the receipt cannot be read in evidence because the workman was not confronted to the receipt during the deposition. Leaned counsel for the employer has relied on the affidavit filed by the witness Joginder Singh, Manager, of the employer, copy of which is produced at Annexure P-7. He has stated in his affidavit that the workman was working in a supervisory capacity. ''He has joined his service on August 1, 1981 and worked upto April 22, 1993 when he obtained whole amount on account of full and final settlement of his claim. He has also stated in the affidavit that the photo copy of the receipt is Exhibit W-2 and the photo copies of the payment and attendance register are Exhibits M-3 and M-4 respectively. On this point, the witness Joginder Singh has been cross-examined and his cross-examination in this case is produced at Annexure P-8.
The controversy between the parties revolves around the receipt dated April 22, 1993, Annexure P-1, which is also a part of the record of the Labour Court. If the facts stated in receipt are accepted as true, then the services of the workman cannot be said to be terminated. Otherwise, it would be that the workman has abandoned his job voluntarily. The Labour Court has not relied on this aspect. The Labour Court in paragraph 9 of the award has observed that the receipt, Exhibit M/X was not confronted to the workman and the workman was not put any question lhat he has received the amount of Rs.2l,672.70. On April 22, 1993 on account of full and final settlement of his claim. It has been further observed that this goes to prove that the receipt has not been duly proved to be a genuine document.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the strict rules of evidence need not be followed in the case before the Labour Court. He has relied on the case of Sammnuggur Jute Factory Co. Ltd. (North Mill) v. Workmen of Sammnuggur Jute Factory Co. Ltd. (North Mill) 1982 LIC 1354, which is a judgment of the Calcutta High Court. It has been held in paragraph 4 that the learned Single Judge held lhat Exhibits A and B were produced before the Tribunal, but they were not properly proved in accordance with the basic principle of Evidence Act. It has been further observed in that case that the learned counsel relied upon the judgment where it was held that technical rules of evidence do not apply to domestic enquiry. I lowever, the Court has further observed its substantive rules which form part of principles of natural justice, cannot, however, be ignored by domestic rules. In the present case, the employer very well knew thai his case is based on the alleged receipt, but no reason is shown as to why the said receipt was not confronted to the workman during his cross-examination by the employer''s representative. Therefore, even if we may not consider it necessary to apply the strict rules of evidence, but under the rules of principle of natural justice, a chance to the workman to explain the receipt alleged to have been executed by him was not given and, therefore, the principles of natural justice are not followed. Thus, we do not find any infirmity with the award. Learned counsel for the employer argued that he may be given an opportunity now to fill up the lacuna which has oc-casioned. However, we do not find it proper to accept his prayer.
In view of the above reasons, the award of the Labour Court vide which the order of reinstatement of the workman was made, needs no interference.
The next question is regarding his back wages. So far as back wages are concerned, a preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the employer stating that the Writ Petition has been filed in the names of workman Ram Surat and also Mr. J.S. Tewari, who was a representative of the workman before the Labour Court. He has drawn our attention to the fact that the petition has been signed by Shri J.S. Tewari and not the workman. As against this, learned counsel for the workman has argued that though the workman has not signed the writ petition, but his counsel has signed the same. Vakalatnamas of both the petitioners, i.e., the workman and his representative are on record by which the counsel signing the writ petition has been authorised to be a counsel in this writ petition. That being the case, the additional name of the representative of the petitioner Ram Surat does not come in the way of the petitioners filing the writ petition. Though the workman has not signed the petition, as his counsel has signed the same, the objection raised by the learned counsel cannot be sustained.
Counsel for the workman has argued that the affidavit filed by the employer''s Manager Shri Joginder Singh does no! go (o prove that the workman was gainfully employed. In the affidavit, if has been stated that the workman has joined the services of M/s. Alloy Forge E-143, Phase-IV. Focal Point, Ludhiana as a Hammerman about five years back and he is drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 5000/-. However, in the next paragraph, it has been stated that this fact was told to him by one Shri Rajinder Kumar. who was also working with them and had joined M/s Alloy Forge E-143, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Counsel for the workman has stated that this affidavit cannot be relied upon being not based on personal knowledge of the person making the statement. In the next paragraph, he has stated that he has personally verified the fact and has seen the workman working with M/s Alloy Forge E-143, Phase IV, Focal Point, Ludhiana. This affidavit has been filed in the writ petition filed by the employer. However, admittedly, no such question was put to the workman during his cross-examination before the Labour Court.
In view of the above facts, we do nol place reliance upon the facts stated in the affidavit. The Labour Court has held that it is a well known fact that Ludhiana is an industrial town and there is no dearth of employment in Ludhiana city for industrial workers. In this connection, counsel for the employer has drawn our attention to the cross-examination of the workman before the Labour Court which is produced at an-nexure P-6 in Civil Writ Petition No. 15124 of 1999. He has stated in his cross-examination that he did not get his name registered with the Employment Exchange and did not give any application in writ ing anywhere for job. We do not agree with the proposition that the workman can be presumed to have gainfully employed because he stays in a city like Ludhiana, which is an industrial town. Merely because the workman survived during the period of unemployment, it cannot be said (hat he was gainfully employed. Reliance has been placed by the Labour Court on the authority cited in M.K. Kohli v. Afrdeal Chemicals, Faridabad, and another, 1997(2) LLN 299, which has now become over-ruled in view of the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 8665 of 2000 State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar. We, therefore, do not find any justificalion in restricting the back wages to 25% only. The workman would be entitled to full back wages.
As a result, Civil Writ Petition No. 15124 of 1999 is dismissed. Civil Writ Petition No. 8095 of 1999 is allowed. Instead of 25% of the back wages, the workman is awarded full back wages.
Petition dismissed.