Ghan Shyam vs Presiding Officer Labour Court
2002 Latest Caselaw 1269 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. It is not necessary to serve respondent No. 3 who is merely a proforma respondent.

2. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 28th February, 2001, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the Order passed by the Labour Court dated 3rd August, 2000.

3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

The appellant claims that he was on sanctioned leave from 10th April, 1990 to 28th April, 1990 due to the illness of his wife. The further stand of the appellant was that on expiry of the sanctioned leave, he was not allowed to join his duties and his services were terminated without any valid reason and without holding an enquiry. On the other hand the stand of the respondent No. 2 was that the workman abandoned service on his own resulting in automatic cessation of service.

4. The Labour Court by its Order dated 27th January, 2000 rejected the claim of the workman on the ground that the workman did not produce any evidence in support of his claim despite number of opportunities granted to him on several dates. The reference was accordingly answered against the workman. Thereafter the workman filed an application before the Labour Court for recall of the Order dated January, 27, 2000. But the application also did not find favor with the Labour Court and the same was rejected on August 3, 2000.

5. The workman feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Labour Court filed a writ petition. Learned Single Judge on February 28, 2001 rejected the writ petition in view of the finding of the Labour Court that the workman failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim.

6. We have been taken through the copies of the orders passed by the Labour Court which have been produced by the appellant/workman. From the Order sheet dated 3rd September, 1996 it is apparent that the appellant had filed an affidavit by way of evidence. But the Labour Court appears to have laboured under an erroneous impression that the workman had failed to adduce evidence. The Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the affidavit of the appellant which was filed by him by way of evidence after giving an opportunity to the second respondent to cross-examine the workman and to produce evidence, if any, in support of its stand. The Learned Single Judge also fell into obvious error in thinking that the workman had failed to adduce evidence before the Labour Court in spite of he opportunity given to him.

7. In the circumstances, therefore, the appeal is allowed & the Order of the Learned Single Judge dated 28th February, 2001 as well as the orders of the Labour Court dated 27 January, 2000 and 3rd August, 2000 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh determination is accordance with law.