Delhi High Court
Handa Offset vs Govt. Of Nct And Anr. on 21 February, 2008
Author: M Sharma
Bench: M Sharma, R Khetrapal
JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.01.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the review application filed by the appellant.
2. The respondent No. 2 was working with the appellant for about four years when his services were terminated with effect from 9th August, 1994. It was alleged that the aforesaid termination was illegal and unjustified as it was passed in violation of the provisions of Section 25(f) and also other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since a dispute was raised by the respondent No. 2, the appropriate Government referred the dispute on the following terms:
Whether the services of Sh. Bindu Prasad have been terminated illegallly and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. Before the Industrial Adjudicator, the stand taken by the appellant was that the workman had joined the services of the appellant only effective from 1st June, 1994 and that he left the service of his own, after submitting a resignation letter and taking full and final payment from the appellant. Parties led evidence before the Industrial Adjudicator and on conclusion of the trial, the Labour Court found that the aforesaid termination was illegal and unjustified and directed for reinstatement of the workman with 50% of the back wages.
4. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid award filed a writ petition which was considered by the learned Single Judge. Although the appellant had taken up a plea that the respondent No. 2 submitted a resignation letter and left the services of his own after taking full and final payment, the appellant could not produce any alleged resignation letter or any receipt suggesting that there had been a full and final settlement between the parties. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge held that the stand taken by the appellant cannot be accepted since the appellant was unable to produce any evidence in support of his case. The learned Single Judge believed the plea taken by the respondent No. 2 that he had been working with the appellant for four years and that his services were illegally terminated. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed giving cogent grounds. Subsequent thereto, it appears that a review application was filed. In the said review application, for the first time, a stand was taken by the appellant that the respondent No. 2 was working elsewhere. The said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 20.01.2006. The present appeal is filed by the appellant challenging both the orders that are passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition as also on the review application.
5. In the light of the aforesaid challenge made, we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the records. What is contended before us is that the learned Single Judge acted illegally in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the respondent No. 2 was working elsewhere. We have considered the said statement in the light of the records placed before us. The specific plea which was taken by the appellant before the Industrial Adjudicator as also before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent No. 2 submitted his resignation and then abandoned the service of his own, after accepting the full and final payment. The aforesaid plea which was taken up in the pleadings of the appellant was required to be proved by leading cogent evidence in support of the said contention. No such resignation letter was placed on record. The appellant also could not prove and establish that the respondent No. 2 had accepted any payment in full and final settlement of all his claims. These are findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Adjudicator which were also considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that there is no such proof of either the respondent No. 2 submitting his resignation from the work or of his accepting any payment in full and final settlement of all his claims. The same being concurrent findings of facts, this Court would not like to reappreciate the evidence.
6. So far the contention that the respondent No. 2 was working elsewhere is concerned, such evidence should have been adduced at the very first instance and not at the stage when a review application was filed, which, if would have been accepted, would have deprived the respondent No. 2 of his right of cross-examining and disproving the said evidence on record. In any case, the Labour Court has awarded 50% back wages to the respondent No. 2, which is also upheld by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the said contention would in any case have no merit.
7. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
