1. The petition challenges the award in Reference (IDA) No.396 of 1992 passed by the 6th Labour Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai dated 25.10.1996. By this award, the Labour Court has directed the respondent employer to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the Petitioner after concluding that the Petitioner's services were illegally terminated. He has also held that the respondent company did not prove that the Petitioner had abandoned his service.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The Petitioner who was employed with the respondent company was instrumental in formation of a union of the workers employed by the Company in 1980. A charter of demands was served on the Company in 1981. The services of 2 members of the Union committee were terminated soon thereafter. A strike was declared and the workmen demanded that the termination orders issued against the 2 employees and other temporary workmen be withdrawn. The strike was declared illegal by the Labour Court on 19.5.1981. The Respondent Company called upon the workmen to report for work. Accordingly, all the workmen reported for work on 20.5.1981. However, the 2 employees who had been removed and the 7 temporary workmen who were also removed, were not allowed to resume work. All the workmen therefore insisted that that the aforesaid workmen should be permitted to work. The workmen were informed that if they did not report for work within 48 hours from 27.5.1981, the Company would treat them as having abandoned the service. An advertisement was issued in the Times of India calling upon the workmen to report for work, else the Company would treat them as having abandoned their services. On 15.6.1981, it appears that the Company treated the petitioner as having abandoned his service. A complaint was filed on behalf of the workmen being complaint (ULP) no.482 of 1981 contending that the Company had effected a lock out by not permitting the workmen to resume work. Another complaint (ULP) No.135 of 1981 was also filed seeking certain other reliefs. Both the complaints were disposed of by a common order on 3.6.1983.

3. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute on 25.7.1983 u/s 2A r/w 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Conciliation officer did not intervene in the matter as required under the provisions of the I.D. Act and, therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.2541 of 1984. This Court by an order dated 24.9.1984 set aside the order of the Conciliation Officer dated 27.4.1984 refusing to admit the matter into conciliation. The Government was directed to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed by the Respondent Company being Appeal No.1382 of 1987. This appeal was withdrawn by the Company in 1991. The Petitioner again approached the conciliation officer for obtaining a reference. Ultimately a Reference was made on 8.6.1992. The parties filed their pleadings before the Court. Documents were also filed by both the Petitioner and the Respondent Company. An application for payment of wages by way interim relief was filed by the Petitioner. The application was allowed on 14.10.1994. As the Presiding Officer was transferred, the petitioner obtained an order from the President of the Industrial Court transferring his Reference to another Court. Accordingly, the mater was transferred to the VI Labour Court on 6.12.1995.

4. Evidence was led by the Petitioner on merits of his case. The Respondent Company led evidence in rebuttal. Although the matter was closed for passing final award after arguments were heard on 29.2.1996, no award was passed till 17.5.1996. On this day, the Labour Court allowed the application made by the Respondent Company for crossexamining the Petitioner further. On the next date of hearing instead of cross-examining the Petitioner, the Company filed additional documents and an application for issuance of witness summons to Digvijay Industri