Panorama Exports P. Ltd. vs Praveen Kumar And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1058 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule.

2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.

3. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 21st March, 2001 by which the Labour Court granted a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favor of the workman in lieu of the reinstatement as in the interregnum the workman concerned, Smt. Asha Devi had died and is now represented by her son, Shri Praveen Kumar, respondent No. 1 in this writ petition.

4. Mr. Sabharwal, the Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in challenging the award of the Labour Court has stated that there is no finding, was recorded that the services of the workman, Smt. Asha Devi were ever terminated and it is the petitioner's case that she had all along been under suspension and therefore, without recording this finding, neither reinstatement nor the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement in favor of the workman(through LR) could have been granted. He has further submitted that the charge-sheet given to Asha Devi had not been proceeded with any further as in the interregnum the workman, Smt. Asha Devi had lodged a claim before the Conciliation Officer and the matter had become subjudice. On these two grounds, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 21st March, 2001.

5. The second ground is being taken up first. The petitioner had not stated anywhere in the writ petition or in the written statement filed before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not proceeded with further as the matter had become 'subjudice' upon the filing of the statement of claim by the workman, Smt. Asha Devi. The dates are relevant. The charge-sheet on which the petitioner relies is dated 6th October, 1984 (An-nexure-1 at Page 21-21A of the writ petition). The demand notice dated 18th October, 1984 was sent by the workman, Asha Devi averring that her services were terminated and she was not being permitted to work, was replied to on 5th November, 1984. However, the said reply dated 5th November, 1984 to the demand notice never asked Asha Devi to join the enquiry. There is also an admission of the petitioner/management's witness, MW-1, Shri V. Ravindran that no subsistence allowance was ever paid to the employee during the period of her suspension and it was further admitted by MW-1 that the name of the worker was no longer on the register of the company. It is also obvious that the mere filing of the statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer by the employee, Asha Devi cannot amount to the matter being sub-judice particularly when the reference was made only on 9th December, 1986. At least till 9th December, 1986 when the reference was made the petitioner could have completed the enquiry. This clearly shows that the petitioner's case of suspension of Asha Devi cannot be given any credence particularly when the MW1 admits that no suspension allowance was given to Asha Devi. Even if the petitioner management was permitted to take this plea, there is no merit in this plea.

6. As far as the termination is concerned, the management's witness is admitted that the name of the workman, Smt. Asha Devi was struck off from the register of the company and it never paid any subsistence allowance and consequently the plea of the workman(through LR, Praveen Kumar) being under suspension cannot be believed. Even in its reply dated 5th November, 1984 to the demand notice dated 18th October, 1984, the plea of her being under suspension and joining the enquiry was not made by the petitioner management. The striking off Asha Devi from the register and non-payment of subsistence allowance is consistent with the finding of termination of service recorded by the Labour, Court.

7. Finally the appropriate course for the petitioner would have been to complete the enquiry in case the case set up by it was true which has not been done and the Labour Court's findings in this respect are unassailable. The petitioner's stand displays the lack of bona fides as it had taken a stand before the Labour Court that it had not received the demand notice dated 18th October, 1984 and the Labour Court had rightly found this plea to be false because the management in its letter dated 5th November, 1984 had itself referred to the said demand notice. Obviously, the petitioner management had taken false pleas and this itself would disentitle it to the discretionary exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in its favor. In any case the petitioner's conduct in this case clearly demonstrates that the workman, Asha Devi was stopped from attending the work. By the demand notice dated 18th October, 1984, the workman, Asha Devi had claimed full back wages and continuity of service. This clearly demonstrates that she had not abandoned the duty and in fact her services were terminated and wholly untenable plea of suspension is taken.

8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition which is thus dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 5,000/- payable to the LR of the deceased workman, i.e., respondent No. 1, Praveen Kumar within six weeks from today and he is further permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs. 15,000/- Along with interest (if any, accrued thereon), already lying deposited in this Court. Registry is directed to release the sum of Rs. 15,000/- plus interest, if any, accrued thereon on or before 31st October, 2003 in addition to such other recovery of the balance amount payable under the impugned award after adjusting the sum of Rs. 15,000/- after its withdrawal from this Court.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.