The legal point established is that the case did not involve dismissal but rather the workman's claim of being stopped from discharging duties, and that the direction for payment of back wages was not reasonable based on the circumstances.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

The legality and validity of an Award dated 29.05.2013 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Silchar, Cachar in Ref. No. 2/2005 is the subject matter of challenge.

2. By the aforesaid Award, the learned Tribunal had held that the management was not justified in stopping/dismissing the workman from his service w.e.f. 29.11.2003 and was accordingly directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

3. This Court while issuing Rule, vide order dated 24.02.2014 had, however, passed an interim order so far as the direction regarding back wages was concerned.

4. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, the basic facts of the case can be narrated in brief in the following manner.

5. The aforesaid Ref. Case No. 2/2005 was made to the learned Tribunal on the following issues:

“1. (a) Whether the management is justified in stopping/dismissing Shri Joynarayan Koiri from service with effect from 29.11.2003 as alleged?

(b) If not, what relief is the Wikman entitled to?

2. (a) Whether the management is justified in issuing absentism motice to Shri Koiri for not attending the duties?

(b) If not, what relief is the workman entitled to?”

6. Both the petitioner-management and the workman-respondent no. 4 had filed their written statements. The management had adduced evidence through three numbers of witnesses whereas the workman had adduced evidence through himself.

7. According to the version projected by the workman, he was not allowed to perform his duties from 29.11.2003 without any reason and his approach to the management had also failed to yield any positive result. It is also projected that there was no proceeding or any allegation against him. As regards three numbers of notices which were also placed on record at the time of conciliation, the workman had stated that those notices which were exhibited as Exts. A, B and C were never served upon him. The workman had also relied the statement of one Radheshyam Rabidas which was made in connection with another case and was exhibited as Ext.-R. The said person-Radheshyam Rabidas had stated that the workman was not allowed to work in the garden. The aforesaid Ext.-R was exhibited by the learned Tribunal. In paragraph 8 of the written statement, the workman has said that he did not have any means of livelihood.

8. The petitioner-management in its written statement has however, refuted all the facts projected. In paragraph 10 of the said written statement, it has been clearly stated that the management never stopped the workman from discharging his duties and the workman had stopped coming from his duties on his own volition. It has further been explained that the workman wanted the job of a particular nature, namely, to maintain the sluice gate which job was earlier given to his father and the sluice gate was near to his home.

9. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties had, however, accepted the plea of the workman and directed his reinstatement with payment of back wages of 50% which has been stated above.

10. I have heard Ms. M Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri SK Singha, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as Shri M Chetia, learned State Counsel, Assam.

11. Ms. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not based on the materials on record and is rather based on surmise and conjectures. It is submitted that all the three notices dated 20.12.2003, 28.02.2004 and 19.03.2004 were tendered to the workman which were refused to be received and those notices have been duly proved as Exts.-A, B and C by the competent witness. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal took a hyper technical approach in seeking any independent witness. It is submitted that the notices of the management cannot be served by any independent witness and therefore, the question of those witnesses being interested wit