Allahabad High Court
Basant Lal Verma vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 April, 2013
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R. Court No. - 1
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1402 of 2010
Basant Lal Verma
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
******
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court declining to answer the reference in favour of the workman. The Labour Court held that the workman had left the services on his own accord and that the employers did not restrain him from working in the employers' establishment.
Before this Court the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the employers could not have struck off the name of the petitioner from the rolls without holding an inquiry and that the striking off the name from the rolls was violative of the certified Standing Orders of the Company. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Robert D'Souja vs. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and anthers, 1982(44)FLR 250 and in the case of D.K.Yadav vs. M/s J.M.A. Industries Ltd., 1993(67) FLR 111.
There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that there cannot be an automatic loss on lien of service and that the name of the petitioner cannot be struck off from the rolls without holding an inquiry.
In the instant case, there is a clear finding that the workman left the services on his own accord. Consequently, the action of the respondents does not entitle the petitioner for reinstatement in service merely because the employer had not conducted the inquiry in accordance with the certified Standing Orders of their Company. No doubt the employers fell in error in not holding an inquiry, but, for this error, reinstatement with backwages cannot be offered. The Court, in the instant case finds, that the employer had made a statement before the Labour Court that they are willing to re-employ the petitioner in service provided he reports for duty. This offer was declined by the workman and instead the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming that he not only is entitled for reinstatement but also for backwages, since no inquiry was made by the employer before striking of the name of the petitioner from the attendance register.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion, that for the mistake the employer has done, the benefit cannot be reaped by the workman, namely, reinstatement with backwages, especially when there is a clear finding that the fault lay with the workman himself who voluntarily left the services on his own accord. The petitioner at best is entitled for compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-N. However, since the employer, even before this Court, has made a generous offer that they are willing to re-employ the petitioner, this petition is disposed of affirming the award with the direction that, in the event, the petitioner reports for duty before the employers, respondent No.3, on or before 25th May, 2013, the employers, respondent No.3, will re-employ the workman and pay the wages, which is due and payable on the post he is re-employed.
Order Date : 26.4.2013
AKJ
(Tarun Agarwala,J.)
