9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled. The above dispute arose on a complaint made by the 1st respondent workman that he was working under the appellant management for a period of 12 years and his services were terminated on 12th May, 1993 without any notice, charge-sheet or inquiry. He also contended that he was drawing Rs. 2,750/- per month as his wages at the time of the termination of his services. He prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The appellant management in the said reference filed a written statement contending that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the 1st respondent herein and the appellant from 12th of May, 1993. Since on the said date the workman voluntarily discontinued his service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack wages it following a judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court reported in 1997 (2) LLN Page 299, in the case of M.K. Kholi Vs. Afadeal Chemicals, Faridabad Anr. confined the same to 25% of the wages from the time his services were terminated till he was reinstated. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court both the management as well as the appellant preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh. So far as the management is concerned, it questioned the finding of the Labour Court that the services of the respondent workman were illegally terminated and the consequential awarding of back wages at the rate of 25% of the wages. While the workman being aggrieved by the restricted bac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e courts below was on the ground that the same was not confronted to the workman when he was in the witness box, therefore, they held since the workman did not have an opportunity of either accepting or denying the contents and the signature of the said document, the courts below rejected the said evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant which according to the learned counsel is erroneous because strict rules of evidence are not applicable to a proceedings before the Labour Court. He endeavoured to submit that the workman had sufficient opportunity of cross examining the management witness and could have established the fact that the receipt relied upon by the appellant was not executed by him. He not having done the same when the manage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ast up to the 22nd of the April, 1993, the burden of proving that he voluntarily left the services then falls on appellant management. This the appellant contends is satisfied by the oral evidence adduced by the management and the documentary evidence produced in the form of the receipt M/X (M3) purportedly executed by the workman and the entries in the bonus register M/X. The Labour Court considering the said document, which is said to be a receipt executed by the respondent, noticed the fact that the original of this document was never produced by the appellant and what was produced was only a photocopy. Even this photocopy was not confronted to the workman when he was in the witness box and the signature found in the said photocopy as al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed. We are unable to accept this argument because if we look into the overall proceedings before the Labour Court, we notice that though the management did take the stand that the workman had left the services of the appellant management voluntarily by receiving his total dues in full and final settlement it did not, at the stage of filing of its written statement, contend that the workman has executed a receipt which is now sought to be produced as Ex. M/X (M3). This coupled with the fact that the said document was not confronted to the respondent workman, in our opinion is sufficient to hold that this document cannot be relied upon for establishing the fact that the management has proved its case that the workman had voluntarily left ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice that the Labour Court awarded only 25% of the back wages primarily relying on a judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of M.K. Kholi vs. Afadeal Chemicals, Faridabad and Anr. 1997 (2) LLN 299, the High Court in its judgment has noticed the fact that the said judgment was reversed by a Division Bench of the very same court in a subsequent judgment delivered in civil writ petition No. 8665 of 2000, in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar and Anr., hence it found that the reliance placed by the Labour Court on the above said judgment of M.K. Kholi vs. Afadeal Chemicals, Faridabad and Anr. was not sustainable. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of P.G.I. of Medical Education R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
