Delhi High Court
Handa Offset vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 12 January, 2004
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 17th February 2003 passed by the learned Labour Court in I.D. No.107/96.
2. The issue referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court reads as follows: --
"Whether the services of Sh. Bindu Prasad have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
3.According to the Respondent/workman he had been working with the Petitioner for about four years when his services were terminated with effect from 9th August 1994 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand , according to the Petitioner, the Respondent/workman had joined the services of the Petitioner only with effect from 1st June 1994 and had left the services on his own after submitting a resignation letter and taking full and final payment from the Petiioner.
4.Even though the Respondent/workman had denied that he was appointed with effect from 1st June 1994, the Petitioner failed to produce any appointment letter. The Petitioner also did not produce any alleged resignation letter or any receipt suggesting that there had been a full and final settlement between the parties. The witness for the Petitioner stated on cross-examination that payment towards full and final settlement was made in cash and that the Petitioner maintained cash and ledger books, but hese were also not produced. On this basis, the learned Labour Court was of the view that the Petitioner had not been able to prove that the Respondent/workman was employed with effect from 1st June 1994 nor was the Petitioner able to prove that the Resondent/workman had resigned from his services after finally settling his dues. The learned Labour Court consequently believed the Respondent/workman when he said that he had been working with the Petitioner for about four years and that his services werillegally terminated.
5.Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned Labour Court had incorrectly decided in favor of the Respondent/workman. Unfortunately, I am not in agreement with learned counsel for the simple reason that the Petitioner was not able to produce any evidence in support of its case. On the other hand, the Respondent/workman had categorically stated that he had been working with the Petitioner for about four years and that his services were illegally terminated. The testimony of the Resondent/workman was not shaken in cross-examination and was believed by the learned Labour Court for good reason.
6.Learned counsel for the Petitioner next contended that the Respondent/workman was not entitled to any back wages. The learned Labour Court accepted the version of the Respondent/workman to the effect that he was unemployed since his termination. The Petitioner was not able to show that the Respondent/workman was in gainful employment after his termination from services. In this view of the matter, the learned Labour Court rightly held that the Respondent/workman was entitled to reinstatement with bck wages. The learned Labour Court however limited the back wages to only 50%. I see no jurisdictional error in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court in this regard.
7. The writ petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
