Point of Law : Labour Law – Reinstatement – Back wages - No back wages is liable to be paid to workman since workman was earning and he is not entitled for any back wages. Of course he is entitled with continuity of service from date of filing of reference before Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner - employer has challenged the award dated 01.01.2010 passed by the Labour Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Reference (L.C.A.) No.643 of 2004 whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent - workman with 50% back wages from 01.06.2004.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that it is proprietorship dealing in manufacturing of Aluminum Collapsible Tubes and the respondent – workman joined as helper in printing department in the petitioner from 19.11.1999. It is further contended by the petitioner that respondent left the premises without intimating or informing any one and he was absent till 30.06.2001. It is also contended by the petitioner that on 01.07.2001, the workman has given written resignation to the petitioner which was accepted. It is contended by the petitioner that on 15.03.2004, the respondent has filed the complaint to the Labour Commissioner and, thereafter, he issued a demand notice on 10.12.2004 through the Shram Shakti Labour Union alleging that the respondent was orally terminated without giving any reasons on 01.07.2002 and demanded full back wages and continuity of service. It is contended that in the said reference, the statement of claim was filed by the respondent and the petitioner has also filed written statement with the averment that the workman has voluntary left the job in the year 2001 and it has produced the document showing that the resignation was tendered in 2001 and the same was accepted and the workman had also taken benefits in lieu of such resignation. It is contended that though all these documentary evidence produced by the Labour Court, the Labour Court has erroneously granted the prayer in favour of the workman which is not in consonance with the facts and documentary evidence on record. It is also contended that the entire award is erroneous on facts and law and, therefore, the said award is required to be quashed and set aside.

3. Heard Mr.Pratik Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. Mr.Pratik Thakker, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. He has submitted that the petitioner was proprietary firm and now, it is not in existence and the workman did not appear before the Court. He has submitted that as per the workman, he was terminated on 01.07.2001 and he did not file any reference till 31.05.2004 and there is a delay of two years. He has also submitted that on 01.07.2001, the workman has resigned the service and his resignation was accepted which is at page-24 and he was paid requisite amount which is at page-25. While referring to the award, he has submitted that the Labour Court has erroneously not accepted the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. He has submitted that there is documentary evidence to show that the amount was paid to the petitioner as per the cash voucher which has signed by the workman. According to him, the reasoning given by the Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

5. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the materials placed on record, it clearly transpires that there is no dispute to the fact that the workman was engaged with the petitioner and after his alleged oral termination, he has filed the reference in the year 2004. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the Labour Court has heavily relied on the deposition of the witness of the employer that he had no knowledge. Now, on perusal of the cross-examination of the workman, it transpires that he had accepted that there is his signature on the resignation letter. According to him, the content of the resignation is not written by him and his signature was taken on blank paper. He has admitted the fact that his signature was obtained on voucher, but a