Textile Waste Industries vs Smt. Devki

V. K. Shali, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the award dated 19th February, 2008 passed by the learned Labor Court-I in I.D. No. 90/2005 in the case titled Smt. Devki W/o Shri Ved Prakash v. Textile Waste Industries.

By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labor Court had held that the workman had not voluntarily left the services of the management w.e.f. 9th February, 2004 after taking his full and final settlement and on the contrary the services of the Petitioner were illegally and unjustifiably terminated without compliance with Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the learned Labor Court was of the opinion that the interest of the justice would be met, in case, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is paid to the Respondent/workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages to the Petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the Petitioner/management to the effect that it was the Respondent/workman herself who had left the services voluntarily of her own after signing the documents with regard to the settlement of her account. The learned Labor Court has squarely and rightly put the onus with regard to the issue of proving that the Respondent/workman had left the services of her own after resigning on the Petitioner/management. It had observed that the Petitioner/management had failed to discharge the said onus that the Respondent/workman has resigned and abandoned her service after settling the account. It is pertinent here to reproduce the contents of para 8 in this regard from the award of the learned Labor Court which reads as under :

Onus was on the management to prove the said claim. To discharge the onus, the management has filed on record the resignation letter dated 06.02.04 Ex.MW1/2, full and final settlement Ex.MW1/3 and a voucher Ex.MW1/4. The claimant has denied having affixed any thumb impression on these documents. AR for management has submitted that the denial of claimant is inconsequential as she has denied her thumb impression even on her affidavit and she did not specifically admit or deny her thumb impression on her statement of claim. He continued that this denial by the worker reflects that she was tutored to deny her thumb impression on all documents of the management and no reliance can be placed on her statement. This submission of AR for management is though attractive but is devoid of any merit as it was incumbent upon the management to prove its case and it cannot draw any support from some discrepancy in statement of the claimant. There is no escape from the fact that it is impossible to identify thumb impression with naked eye. The documents relied by management to prove full and final settlement have been filed by the management and were in its custody. Though they have been exhibited in evidence but they have not been proved as per law. It is a settled proposition of law that mere exhibition does not amount to legal proof of the documents. MW1, who exhibited these documents in his statement, admitted that the resignation letter Ex.MW1/2 was not tendered to him personally by the worker. He did not affirm in his affidavit that other two documents were prepared in his presence or any amount was paid to the worker by him or in his presence. All these documents reflect that they have been signed by Anjana Gupta as proprietor of the management. She did not step into the witness box to depose that resignation was tendered by the claimant to her or was accepted by her or that on her directions a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the claimant. No explanation has been given for non-appearance of said Smt. Anjana Gupta in evidence. As per Ex.MW1/3, one Virender Kr. Aggarwal was the witness in whose presence full and final payment was given to the claimant but he was also not summoned or tendered in evidence without any reasonable justification. The management could have substantiated its claim of full and final payment with its account books showing disbursement of the said sum in favour of claimant on 09.02.2004 but again no account books were produced or proved in evidence. For these reasons, I am satisfied that management has failed to prove that the claimant has voluntarily left the services of management w.e.f. 09.02.04 and had taken her full and final dues. Issue is decided in favor of workman and against the management.

A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that the learned Labor Court has analyzed the evidence adduced by the parties and come to a finding of fact. This Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the said evidence again. The Petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity in the finding of the learned Labor Court. He has also not been able to point out the violation of any principle of natural justice, rule, regulation or any illegality in the order upon which only this Court can interfere with the award of the learned Labor Court.

The learned Labor Court instead of ordering reinstatement and payment of back wages has given a paltry sum of Rs. 50,000/-as compensation. The quantum of compensation which has been given can also not said to be unfair or unreasonable which may need any interference.

For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is without any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.