Termination deemed illegal due to management's failure to prove salary payment, leading to workman's entitlement for compensation under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition challenged the impugned award dated 22nd December, 2018 in LIR No.9389/16 titled Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma v. Sh. Sanjeev Rastogi, by which the claim filed by the Petitioner/Workman (hereinafter "Workman") was rejected by the Labour Court.

3. In this matter, notice was issued vide order dated 12th April, 2019. The Management's counsel had appeared on the first few dates being 27th August, 2019 and 6th February, 2020, and opportunity was granted to the Management to file their reply. However, vide order dated 6th February, 2020, the right to file reply was closed. On subsequent dates being 24th November 2020, 29th January, 2021 and 6th October, 2021, despite the Management having been served, there has been no appearance on its behalf. Vide previous order dated 6th October, 2021, this Court had also directed that the Registry give intimation to the counsels of the next date. Accordingly, as per the office noting, copy of the previous order had been issued to the counsels. However, there is no appearance even today for the Management. In view of these facts, this Court proceeds to hear the matter.

4. The brief facts in this case are that the Workman was appointed as a Field Worker in 2007 with a last drawn salary of Rs.15,000/-. Some time around April, 2016, it appears that disputes arose between the Workman and the Management. The case of the Workman is that since February, 2016, his salary was not paid and he was abruptly terminated on 18th April, 2016. Thus, the Workman filed a claim before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement and declaration that his termination was illegal.

5. On the other hand, the case of the Management was that the Workman voluntarily left his duty on 8th April, 2016, though, the letter dated 4th May, 2016, issued by the Management, annexed at page 76 of this writ petition, states the date of leaving by the Workman as 18th April, 2016 and not on 8th April, 2016. The Management further stated that they repeatedly asked the Workman to join back the services of the Management but he refused to do so.

6. The claim of the Workman has been rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the Workman did not furnish any explanation for his absence since 18th April, 2016. The second finding of the Labour Court is that during the pendency of the case before the Labour Court, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was offered to the Workman by the Management, as lump sum compensation which was not accepted by the Workman. The Labour Court appears to have been prejudiced by this fact as well. The relevant extract of the order of the Labour Court is as under:

"Issue no. 1. Whether services of workman (Amit Kumar Sharma) were terminated by management (M/s Koron Engineers) illegally or unjustifiably? O.P.W.