High Court
Case Details
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)+,-.+(cid:4)(cid:6)/(cid:4)+.01(cid:4)(cid:4) - – 1 – (cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:17) (cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:18) (cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:6) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:6) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:6) (cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:6) (cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)+,-.+(cid:4)(cid:6)/(cid:4)+.01(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:23)"(cid:30)(cid:4)(cid:6)/(cid:4)2(cid:30)$#!#(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:25).3(cid:7).+(cid:7)+.+3(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:23) (cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:6) (cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:6) ((cid:14)(cid:17)(cid:13)!(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:13) (cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:4)(cid:31)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:17) !"#$(cid:30)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:22)!#(cid:24) #(cid:24)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:4)%#(cid:26)&’(cid:4)%(cid:30)"’#(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:17)(cid:30)(cid:6)(cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:6)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:30)(cid:6) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:6)!(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:6) (cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:6)"(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:28)(cid:8)(cid:19)(cid:6)#(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:31)(cid:4) (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:2)%(cid:30)(cid:6)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:30)(cid:6) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:13)! (cid:6) ’’’’’(cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:30)(cid:6)$(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:6) (cid:17)(cid:13)!(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:22)&(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6) (cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:4)%#(cid:26)&’(cid:4)%(cid:30)"’#((cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:4))(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:29)* (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:15) (cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:25)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:27)(cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:22)!#(cid:24)(cid:22)(cid:23) 1. In the present petition, the challeng In th ssed allenge is against the award passed by the Lab he Labour Court dated 28.09.2017 (An ea of (Annexure P-3), by which plea of the petitio petitioner that his services were wron dent e wrongly terminated by respondent no.1, has n , has not been accepted and his claim with s claim for reinstatement alongwith consequen cted. equential benefits has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the for the Lear the r the petitioner submits that the petitioner w ioner was appointed as a Welder on 02 there r on 02.03.1991 and he worked there for approx approximately 21 years upto 13.03 was 3.03.2012, after which he was restrained ained from discharging his duties. t the uties. He further submits that the demand n and notice dated 25.04.2012 (Anne the (Annexure P-1) was given by the petitioner a ioner against his wrongful termination was ination and ultimately, the issue was VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)+,-.+(cid:4)(cid:6)/(cid:4)+.01(cid:4)(cid:4) - – 2 – raised befo d before the Labour Court for adjudic ation adjudication whether the termination of services rvices of the petitioner is justified or n ed or not. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner ar Lear ating oner argues that without appreciating the facts o facts on record, a finding has been rec t the en recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner ioner himself had abandoned the job ever he job and his services were never terminated inated, thereby rejecting the claim of the im of the petitioner by virtue of the impugned ugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lear is no ioner further argues that there is no evidence w ence which has come on record that oned d that the petitioner had abandoned the job so job so as to invite the said finding and, findings of the Labour Court and, therefore, t efore, the award of the Labour Court m d the ourt may kindly be set aside and the claim of of the petitioner for the grant of his ant of benefit of setting aside his termination ination with all consequential benefits enefits be allowed in his favour. 5. Learned counsel for the petition Lear the etitioner further submits that the documents ments which have been relied upon ever upon by the respondent were never put to the p to the petitioner during the recording o ding of evidence. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing Lear - aring on behalf of the respondent- institution tution submits that it is not a case of f the ase of termination of services of the petitioner ioner rather it is a case where the pet s job the petitioner had abandoned his job and despite despite a letter dated 04.04.2012 writt s, he written to him to join the duties, he came for a e for and submitted an apology and w will and with the assurance that he will perform th orm the duties but again absented and uced ed and all such record was produced before the re the Labour Court which has bee rrect as been appreciated in the correct perspective pective so as to record the finding that were g that services of the petitioner were VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)+,-.+(cid:4)(cid:6)/(cid:4)+.01(cid:4)(cid:4) - – 3 – never term r terminated and that he himself ha hich self had abandoned the job, which finding nee ing needs no interference at the hands o hands of this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the I hav ough or the parties and have gone through the record ecord with their able assistance. 8. Keeping in view the totality of the Kee re on of the circumstances, which were on record bef rd before the Labour Court, it cann ings it cannot be said that the findings recorded b rded by the Labour Court qua aba the a abandonment of the job by the petitioner ioner is perverse or contrary to th The to the evidence on record. The argument ment of learned counsel for the peti e an e petitioner that there has to be an enquiry be iry before termination, it may be noti of an noticed that in case services of an employee loyee is being terminated, then only that only it might be a possibility that there wou e would be a show cause notice and t the ce and inquiry to answer that the reason for on for termination is misconduct. In t se of t. In the present case, it is a case of abandonm donment of job and not of terminati y the mination as is being alleged by the petitioner. ioner. Hence, the question whether was hether any show cause notice was required to ired to be served upon the petitioner eing tioner or not does not arise as being contended ended by the learned counsel for the pe r the petitioner. 9. As far as the arguments of the lear As f ioner e learned counsel for the petitioner that the the documents, which were pres rities presented before the authorities concerned, erned, including Ex.M6 were never p , it ever put to him. In regard to this, it may be no be noticed that once a document is br ourt t is brought before the Labour Court and that that too in the presence of the partie . parties, the same is to be objected. Learned co ned counsel for the petitioner has no any has not been able to point out any such objec objection raised before the Labour said bour Court qua validity of the said document ment wherein the petitioner himself h at he self has admitted in writing that he VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)+,-.+(cid:4)(cid:6)/(cid:4)+.01(cid:4)(cid:4) - – 4 – was absen absent from duty without any valid iance valid justification and the reliance placed by ed by the Labour Court on the said t be said document (Ex.M6) cannot be treated to b ed to be misplaced or invalid. 10. Lear Learned counsel for the petitioner e of titioner argues that it is a case of termination ination of services and that too with ce or o without any show cause notice or any enquir enquiry of any misconduct alleged h d by ged hence, the finding recorded by the Labou Labour Court may kindly be set asid y be et aside. In this regard, it may be noticed tha d that keeping in view the record w efore cord which has been brought before the Labour Labour Court including the attendance been ndance register, which has not been objected, t cted, the petitioner has been found bour found absent. Further, the Labour Court has rt has recorded a finding in paragraph r the graph 9 of the award that as per the letter Ex.M r Ex.M6 dated 18.04.2014, the emplo that employee had given in writing that he was abs as absent on his own without there be and ere being any valid justification and the same same will not be repeated again, w t the ain, which clearly shows that the employee w loyee was absent and his services were s were never terminated. 11. No o No other argument has been raised aised. 12. Lear earned counsel for the petitioner h that ioner has not been able to show that the finding indings recorded by the Labour Court Court are perverse in any manner. 13. Kee Keeping in view the above, the reby e, the present petition is hereby dismissed. issed. (cid:23)(cid:22)4(cid:4).3((cid:4)+.+3(cid:4) (cid:16)(cid:30)(cid:28)(cid:22) (cid:23)(cid:22)4 (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) 5#(cid:26)(cid:6)26(cid:4) (cid:4) )(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:6)*(cid:10) *(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:13)!(cid:17)(cid:5)+(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:27)(cid:6) *(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:17)!(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:25)%(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:6) *(cid:10) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:6) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:6) *(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4))(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:22)!#(cid:24)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:4)%#(cid:26)&’(cid:4)%(cid:30)"’#* (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:17) 2&(cid:30)(cid:4) (cid:4) #(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:6))(cid:26)(cid:6) #(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:12))(cid:26)(cid:6) VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document