A workman must accept an offer of reinstatement to claim back wages; failure to do so constitutes abandonment of work, negating entitlement to relief.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith in both petitions. Learned advocate Ms.Yogini Parikh waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.P.S.Gogia for respondent no.2 in SCA No.12586 of 2017 and Learned advocate Mr.Aditya Mistry waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.P.S.Gogia for respondent no.2 in SCA No.1750 of 2023.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally.

3. Both the petitions are filed challenging the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer learned Labour Court, Porbandar dated 06.02.2017 by which the workman was granted the lump sum compensation of Rs.21,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages which was directed to be paid by the Contractor B.Panikar, who is the petitioner in SCA No.1750 of 2023.

4. The case of the workman as mentioned in the statement of claim is that workman was working since 24.04.1992 as a clerk with respondent no.2 i.e Saurashtra Cement Ltd, Ranavav. Without following due procedure under the I.D.Act and service came to be terminated from 01.05.1999 and therefore, dispute was raised before the learned Labour Court. The contractor namely B.Panikar appeared before the learned Labour Court and submitted that no termination, as alleged by the workman, had ever taken place however, the workman used to remain on unauthorized leave and though, he was informed to resume the duty vide communication dated 18.12.1999 and instead of resuming the duty the dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer also the work was offered vide communication dated 01.04.2000 and it was informed that as there is no work available for respondent no.2 at Ranavav he shall resume duty at Baroda office or at Surat office.

4.1. It is contended in the written statement that workman has abandoned the work and therefore, there is no breach of section 25F as alleged and as workman was working under the Contractor B.Panikar it is his duty to resume the work as and when the work is offered and at the place where work is available. Learned Labour Court, after recording the oral evidence of the witness of both the parties and considering the documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that there was no notice, inquiry or any disciplinary proceedings initiated for taking unauthorised leave and therefore, there is breach of section 25F. Considering the conduct of the workman, that despite he was informed to resume the duty he did not remain present, the lump sump compensation of Rs. 21,000/- was awarded. The workman has filed petition being SCA No.12586 of 2017 seeking enhancement of compensation however, the Contractor has filed the petition being SCA No. 1750 of 2023 seeking quashment of impugned award. During the pendency of the petition, this Court, vide order dated 05.01.2024, has directed the Contractor to pay amount of Rs.21,000/- which has been awarded to the workman which was paid by the contractor.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Aditya Mistry for the workman and learned advocate Ms.Yogini Parikh for the Contractor namely B.Panikar and learned advocate Mr.Gogia for Saurashtra Cement Ltd, Ranavav.

5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Aditya Mistry submits that learned Labour Court has committed error in disbelieving the case of the present workman that he was working since 1992. Learned advocate Mr.Aditya Mistry submits that documentary evidence to establish that he has worked since 1992 was disbelieved by the learned Labour Court. Learned advocate Mr.Aditya Mistry relied on the communication dated 03.12.1993 which was produced below Exh.22 wherein, it was informed to one M/s Agrawal Printers that draft of Rs.27,000/- was sent with Mr.Falgun Kanakia who is the workman. Relying on the said communication, it was submi