JUDGMENT R.J. Kochar, J.
1. It is the case of the Respondent workman, who indeed was not at all interested in reinstatement but still continued to carry on this extremely vexatious litigation obviously to extract or knock out some money from the employer.
2. According to the petitioner, the Respondent workman joined the employment on and from March 1, 1986. Soon thereafter on and from November 10, 1989 he started remaining absent without leave or permission. It appears that on November 16, 1989 he approached the Government Labour Officer to lodge a complaint that the petitioner employer had illegally and wrongfully terminated his service w.e.f. November 10, 1989. It further appears that the Government Labour Officer called both the parties on November 29, 1989 to resolve their dispute, but he could not do so. On that date the petitioner attended the office of the Government Labour Officer and submitted that the workman himself was remaining absent and that he was never terminated from employment and that he could report for work with continuity of service. It is borne out from the record that the workman refused to get reinstated with continuity of service but insisted for backwages from November 10, 1989 to November 29, 1989. It appears that the petitioner employer was not willing to pay the aforesaid amount of backwages on the ground that the petitioner had not terminated the services of the workman and therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay any so-called backwages. It further appears that the workman pursued the litigation by submitting his formal demand for reinstatement and full backwages. It further appears from the record that the petitioner employer had promptly addressed two letters on December 19, 1989 and December 28, 1989 calling upon the workman to resume his duties if he was really interested in employment. It appears that there was absolutely no response from the workman and did not report for duty. The 1 dispute rolled further in the conciliation proceedings. Even during the Conciliation Proceedings the petitioner employer filed a letter on February 21, 1990 setting out all the facts which transpired there before. These were the conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, wherein the petitioner employer repeated his stand that the employment of the workman was not terminated by the petitioner employer and that the workman started remaining absent and that he never joined or came back inspite of umpteen number of offers made to him to come back and attend the employment. Inspite of the best efforts made by the Officers it appears that the respondent workman was unwilling to join the duty without backwages. The Government of Maharashtra referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court after getting the failure report from the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Even before the Labour Court in reply to the statement of claim filed by the respondent workman, the petitioner employer filed its written statement setting out all the facts including the offer of reinstatement without backwages. Even before, the Labour Court there was no response from the workman. He never expressed his willingness to loin the employment. The Labour Court recorded the evidence of the workman. The petitioner employer thought it proper not to enter into witness box in view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record of the Labour Court.
4. The workman in his evidence has admitted that the offer of reinstatement without backwages was made by the petitioner employer before the Government Labour Officer and also before the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour in conciliation proceedings. He has also candidly admitted that he did not accept the said offer of reinstatement without back wages. In the aforesaid background the Labour Court has given the impugned award of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service w.e.f. November 10, 1989. The petitioner employer has challenged the said award on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner employer had never terminated the services of the workman but the workman himself had unauthorisedly remained absent from November 10, 1989 and that at every stage the petitioner employer had offered reinstatement from the day first before the Government Labour Officer, but the workman was adamant and obstinate not to accept the offer of reinstatement without backwages.
5. The Labour Court has framed as many as five issues and answered all of them against the petitioner. The Labour Court has held that the services of the workman were terminated on November 10, 1989 without any notice or charge-sheet and in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has dealt with the offer of the petitioner employer about the reinstatement in paragraph 17 and held that the workman was justified in rejecting the offer of reinstatement without backwages. He has therefore granted reinstatement with full backwages to the workman. In my opinion the petitioner employer has proved to the hilt that from the day first before the Government Labour Officer reinstatement without backwages was offered to the workman but he refused to accept the said offer and insisted for even 19 days wages. The petitioner employer according to me rightly refused the demand of the workman for wages for 19 days as according to the petitioner employer the workman himself had remained absent fromNovember 10, 1989 and that there was no termination of his employment by the petitioner employer and in the circumstances the petitioner employer was not liable to pay any wages for the misconduct of the workman for having remained absent without leave and permission. Had it been that the petitioner employer terminated the employment of the workman, no offer of reinstatement would have been made to the workman throughout constantly and continuously even till the stage of the proceedings before the Labour Court. They have placed these facts on record in writing. Even the workman had admitted in his oral evidence that such offers were made to him by the employer and he did not accept the same as there was no offer of backwages and that he was not prepared to join his duty without backwages. This very fact of adamant and obstinate attitude on the part of the workman clearly indicates that he himself had abandoned the employment by remaining absent from November 10, 1989 for the reasons best known to him and under wrong advice he approached the Government machinery with ulterior motives to extract some money if possible. In my opinion no genuine and bona fide workman who was aggrieved by an illegal order of termination would deny the offer of reinstatement and would not readily give up the valuable job for the sake of few days backwages. Alternatively the workman could have accepted reinstatement before the Government Labour Officer and even before the Conciliation Officer praying to refer the dispute restricting to the entitlement of the backwages as he was already reinstated during the proceedings before the Government Labour Officer or the Conciliation Officer as the case may be. Lastly he could have accepted the offer of reinstatement made by the petitioner employer in the written statement even before the Labour Court. He could have made such an application to the Labour Court reserving his right to get backwages and joining the employment without prejudice to the aforesaid right. The workman did not do any such thing which leaves no manner of doubt that the workman never intended to get employment under the petitioner. I have therefore, absolutely no manner of doubt that the petitioner employer had not terminated the employment of the respondent workman and that he himself had remained absent from employment from November 10, 1989 and lodged a false complaint with the Government Labour Officer and continued the litigation vexatiously mala fide to extract some money from the employer, if possible, but from the conduct of the petitioner employer it is clear that in principle he was satisfied that since he had not terminated the employment of the workman why he should pay any amount towards the backwages to the workman. I am not able to blame the petitioner employer in any manner. According to me, the conduct of the workman was totally unreasonable in refusing to accept the reinstatement without backwages on the first date of hearing before the Government Labour Officer. The Labour Court has failed to consider all these aspects and has mechanically recorded its finding that the petitioner employer having terminated the employment of the workman was liable to reinstate the workman with full backwages and continuity of service.
6. Shri Gehani, the learned advocate for petitioner employer, has filed a compilation of the letters along with acknowledgments written to the workman after the impugned award dated July 24, 1997 calling upon the workman to join the duty in view of the award of reinstatement. According to Shri Gehani the workman reported for work on October 24, 1997 and worked upto November 10, 1997 and thereafter again disappeared.
7. From the aforesaid facts it appears that he workman is not interested in the employment of the petitioner employer. Considering all these facts in reverse there is inescapable conclusion that the workman himself had abandoned the employment and started the vexatious litigation to try to get some monetary benefits.
8. The impugned award and the order of the Labour Court is quashed and set aside. It is held and declared by me that the petitioner employer had not terminated the employment of the workman and that he himself had remained absent from November 10, 1989 and had not accepted the offer of reinstatement made by the petitioner and therefore I hold and declare that the workman is not entitled to get reinstatement and backwages. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a).
9. The petitioner employer is allowed to withdraw the amount of deposit made by him pursuant to the order dated December 9, 1997 with accrued interest, if any.
10. The Prothonotary and Senior Master to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.