The finality of the Labour Court's findings and the limited scope of re-appreciating evidence in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated, 5.2.2004, (Annexure `A') passed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Labour Court-II, thereby directing to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages with full facilities and to restore the continuity of his Services as per the rules. Call for the record of case ID No. 192/96.

(b) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

2. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

i. The petitioner was employed for office field work by the respondent since 1st October 1979, on a monthly wage of Rs.1,500/- and he was removed from his services on 15th September 1995.

ii. After his termination, the petitioner served the respondent with a notice for demanding the wages and other benefits that were due on the part of the respondent.

iii. The petitioner was constrained to approach the Labour Cour as the respondent management did not provide any relief to the petitioner with regard to the wages that were due.

iv. Learned Labour Court issued notice to the respondent on 22nd December 1997. The Court decided to pass ex-parte Award in favour of the petitioner as the respondent management failed to appear on the date fixed by the learned Labour Court for filing of the written statement on 11th February 1998.

v. The learned Labour Court passed an Award dated 25th May 1998, and held that the termination of the petitioner by the management was illegal, unjustified and further held the petitioner entitled for reinstatement to his job with continuity and full back wages.

vi. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent moved an application dated 2nd September 1998, for setting aside the Award dated 25th May 1998, which was allowed by the learned Labour Court subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- on 19th March 1999.

vii. After the ex-parte Award was set aside, further proceedings were conducted and the learned Labour Court erroneously passed the impugned Award dated 5th February 2004, and held that the petitioner failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said termination is illegal and was done without following the due process of law as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

4. It is submitted that this act of the respondent no. 2 is in contravention and violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter "the Act"). It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Award dated 5th February 2004 is liable to be set aside as the same does not deal with the issue that was initially referred to the Labour Court i.e., whether the service of the petitioner was terminated illegally, instead it framed new issues i.e., whether the workman tendered his resignation and has received his final dues, and to what relief is the workman entitled to.

5. It is submitted that the impugned Award is illegal and has been decided without considering the merits. The learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the evidence produced by the respondent i.e. the resignation letter dated 6th March 1995, the voucher and the receipt dated 9th April 1995 etc., are fabricated and unsubstantial, as the signatures of the petitioner were obtained illegally on some blank papers.

6. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court wrongly observed that the petitioner had resigned and his resignation letter is legally valid. It is submitted that during the cross examination, the petitioner neither admitted to the exhibits (documentary evidence) nor to the receiving of settlement amount of Rs.11,996/-. Therefore, the learned Labour Court gravely erred in observing the