JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner challenges the award dated 23-1-2001, passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 344 of 1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of illegal termination of his services being established, the Labour Court erred in not ordering reinstatement and awarding full back wages for the period from the date of termination till the date of closure of the undertaking and by restricting the relief only to the payment of closure compensation.

3. The petitioner joined the respondent-company as a clerk some time in the year 1985. On complaint that his services were illegally terminated from 16-11-1995 and pursuant to the conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter was referred for adjudication of the issue as to whether the petitioner should be ordered to be reinstated with full back wages and with continuity of service with effect from 16-11-1995 to the Labour Court. It is the case of the petitioner that his services were orally terminated without any justifiable reason. On the other hand, it was the case of the respondent-company that inspite of repeated requests the petitioner did not resume his duties and that his services were not at all terminated and being so, there was no question of reinstatement as such and further that the respondent-company was always ready and willing to allow the petitioner to joint to his duties. It was their case that since the petitioner had abandoned the services without any justification from 17-11-1995, he is not entitled for any relief in the matter. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by both the parties, held that the petitioner did not respond positively to the offer made at various stages by the company to join to his duties and since the undertaking has been closed down, the petitioner would be entitled only to the relief under section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the company would be liable to pay the closure compensation to the petitioner. The relief of reinstatement and for back wages was not granted to the petitioner and hence the present petition.

4. While assailing the impugned order, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the materials on record clearly disclose that the petitioner's services were abruptly terminated without justifiable reason and the said fact was confirmed by the letter dated 17-1-1996, addressed to the petitioner by the company, wherein it was clearly disclosed that the petitioner's name was removed from the muster-roll of the company. He has further submitted that the Labour Court erred in relying upon the letter dated 26-4-1996 as being the offer made by the respondent-company to the petitioner to join to his duties when, in fact, the said letter was not written by the respondent company but by one M/s. Mangal Exports and being so, it was apparent that there was no offer from the respondent-company to the petitioner to join to his duties. He further submitted that the Labour Court erred in placing reliance upon the letter dated 10-7-1996, without considering the fact that the said letter was addressed to the Conciliation Officer after the failure report by the Conciliation Officer and that therefore there was no occasion for the petitioner to know about the said letter. Referring to the statement in the written statement by the respondent-company about their willingness to allow the petitioner to join to his duties, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that assuming that there was sincere offer on the part of the employer to allow the workman to join to his duties, it can, at the most, be held to be from December, 1997 as the said written statement was filed in November, 1997. But the fact remains that would not entitle the employer to deny the back wages to the employee for the period prior to December, 1997. In a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document