Ram Chander vs Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.—The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure P-9) whereby, the reference has been decided against the workman.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the workman should have been reinstated since the Labour Court has found that he had abandoned the job and thus only back wages should have been denied.

A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workman was appointed as a Driver on 03.04.2005 and it is alleged that his services were terminated on 19.03.2008 when he was drawing salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. Accordingly, a demand notice dated 01.04.2008 was served upon the respondent-management alleging that there was violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ''the Act'') and that the provisions of Sections 25H, 25-N and 25-G of the Act had also been violated since juniors had been appointed.

On the matter being referred to the Labour Court, in the written statement a specific plea was taken that he had absented on his own accord and he was asked to join duties vide letter dated 10.05.2008 sent by way of registered post and there was no dispute which could be referred for adjudication. The case of the management was that the workman started remaining absent from duty from 19.03.2008 onwards and his name was not on the rolls of the school due to the act of absence. Accordingly, it was averred that it was not a case of termination but was case of remaining absent from duty and provisions of Sections 25G, 25H and 25N of the Act would not be attracted. It is denied that Rajesh, junior was engaged.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the attendance register Ex. MW 1/1 showed that he was marked present upto 18.03.2008 and he chose to remain absent and even notice Ex. M-1 was sent to him asking him to join the duty vide postal receipt Ex. MW 1/2. In spite of the said fact, the workman did not join duty. It was also noticed that before the Conciliation Officer also, he had been asked to join duty and he failed to turn up and that there was an admission on account of the workman that he had attended duty for last time on 18.03.2008. Accordingly, it was held that there was no termination and, therefore, the protection u/s 25F of the Act would not flow. Reliance was also rightly placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Laxmi Kant Jha Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Another, wherein it was held that once the workman had himself abandoned his job why was it required to hold an inquiry. The deposition of MW-2 Balwant was referred to, to notice that the workman had no intention to serve any longer and accordingly, the reference was declined.

As noticed above, contention of the counsel was that provisions of Section 25F had not been complied with and even in the case of absence, inquiry should have been held and the register relied upon was only a loose sheet of paper and the management witness, who allegedly went to call upon the workman, himself had gone after April once the dispute had arisen. Reliance was also placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Others, in support of the averments.

After perusing the statement of the parties which have also been placed on record as Annexures, this Court is of the opinion that the relief has rightly been declined by the Labour Court. In the cross examination of the workman, his case as set out was totally shattered. He accepted the fact that he had received a letter Ex. M1 and that his last day of working was 18.03.2008. He also accepted the fact that it was correct that he had not replied to Ex. M1 but sought to explain that he had gone for duty which was not his case in the claim petition. It was only a false explanation which was being made up that at point of time. As noticed, the categorical case of the management was that it was willing to take him back but not with back wages. It is obvious that the workman was insistent on the back wages at that stage. Now, once the relief has been declined and now an offer has been made that the workman is ready to be taken back without back wages, this Court is not willing to accept the said submission once the workman had set out a false plea of termination which has been properly examined by the Labour Court. The management was also categoric in its stand which would be clear from the statement Ex. M-1 wherein, in the cross examination, the witness said that they were ready to take him back on duty but without back wages. The Labour Court was thus well justified in holding that it was not a case of termination but was a case of abandonment of job as it was a case of admission himself by the workman. The argument that the judgment in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd.''s case (supra) would be applicable is without any basis in the facts and circumstances of the case. Once the workman himself admits that he was called on duty but did not go and neither replied, it is not correct to hold that the management did not hold an inquiry and it is an exercise in futility when an employee was not interested to come back. In such circumstances, the well reasoned order of the Labour Court does not warrant any interference.

It has time and again been held by the Apex Court that while exercising the powers of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is to exercise its power only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice has taken place. The High Court will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge, appreciate or evaluate evidence and correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. The said principle was laid down in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, It is where the Tribunal has acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it and decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to the principles of natural justice, this Court would interfere. The error of law has to be apparent on the face of the record and it has to be manifestly clear that the conclusion of law recorded by the Tribunal is in misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions or in ignorance in regard of the same. Thus, what can be corrected is an error of law, which would be of such character which is apparent on the face of the record and if the statutory provision is capable of two constructions and one of it had been adopted by the Tribunal, it may not be desirable to correct the same by way of writ of certiorari.

In the present case, no such error of law or fact has been shown which would warrant interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned order of Labour Court and the writ petition is dismissed in limine.