IMPORTANT POINT
Burden of proving that workman voluntarily left the services would fall on management.

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The Government of Punjab referred the following industrial dispute between the workman and management of the appellant herein for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to adjudication by the Labour Court, Ludhiana in Reference No. 1145/1993 :-

(1) Whether termination of Services of Shri Ram Surat, workman, is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is entitled.

2. 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.

3. 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 services with the appellant after receiving all his dues in full and final settlement. Certain other preliminary objections, like maintainability of the reference on the ground that the 1st respondent was holding a supervisory post hence an industrial dispute was not maintainable, were also raised. The workman filed his rejoinder to the said written statement.

4. Based on the pleadings before it the Labour Court framed the following issues :-

(1) Whether relationship of master and servant existed between the parties on the alleged date of termination?

(2) Whether the reference is not maintainable, as alleged?

(3) Whether the claimant is not a Workman as defined under the Industrial Act ?

(4) Whether termination of the services of the workman is justified and in order?

5. The Labour Court by its award dated 18th of May, 1998 held in regard to the first question that there existed a relationship of master and servant between the parties at the time of termination of services of the workman.

6. In regard to issues No. 2 and 3, the Labour Court held that the contention of the appellant management that the respondent No. 1 was not a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be sustained, hence the reference was valid.

7. In regard to issue No. 4 the Labour Court held that on the relevant date 1st respondent being in the service of the appellant management his services were wrongfully terminated. Hence, he was entitled for re-instatement, however, with regard to back 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.

8. 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.

9. While the workman being aggrieved by the restricted back wages awarded by the Labour Court challenged that part of the award claiming the entire wages due to him for his wrongful termination of service since he was unemployed during the said period.

10. The High Court by the impugned judgment while dismissing the petition of the management agreed with the contention of the respondent workman and allowed his petition directing the payment of full back wages because of which the appellant has now become liable to not only to reinst