Judgment :

OWP No.1126/2014

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the award dated 11.07.2014 passed by respondent no. 2-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jammu (for short, the Tribunal) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947) whereby an amount of Rs. one lac has been awarded as compensation in favour of respondent No. 3.

Before adverting to the grounds of challenge in the aforesaid petition, it would be apt to give brief factual background of the case.

2. It has been averred by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 was engaged as a Foreman Incharge Repair and Maintenance work at the petitioner’s unit to supervise and look after the production, repair and maintenance of the machinery. It is specific stand of the petitioner that since the respondent No.3 failed to perform his duties as Foreman, his services were terminated in terms of order dated 27.04.2002 w.e.f. 18.04.2002. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 3 raised a demand notice dated 18.05.2002 wherein he admitted the fact of his employment with the petitioner as Foreman and was drawing salary of Rs. 4200/- per month at the time of termination of his services.

3. Feeling aggrieved of the same, respondent No. 3 filed a claim before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Jammu in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and finally vide SRO No.14 dated 20th January, 2003, respondent No. 1-State Government in exercise of its power conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act of 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication to respondent No. 2 on the following points:—

(a) Legality or otherwise of the action of the management of M/s Manu Mohit Industries, Dhiani, Samba in terminating the services of its employee, Sh. Sukhwant Singh, Foreman;

(b) Award appropriate relief to the said employee in case the illegality of the action of the management of the said industry is established.

4. It is also stated that the petitioner while contesting the aforesaid reference before the learned Tribunal categorically pleaded and filed a supplementary affidavit to the effect that the respondent No. 3 does not fall within the definition of workman in terms of section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and the claim lodged by the respondent No. 3, as such, was not maintainable, besides taking other pleas with regard to drawing of the salary. It is also averred that the learned Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1947, after completion of the pleadings and appreciating the evidence as well as the material placed on record, passed a detailed award dated 11.07.2014 directing the petitioner to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. One lac to the Workman-respondent No. 3 herein.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal reveals that evidence of the petitioner therein (respondent No. 3 herein) was closed by it on 04.04.2005 and thereafter respondent therein (petitioner herein) was directed to lead the evidence. After availing numerous opportunities to lead the evidence, only one witness namely Ram Murti was recorded on 22.10.2007 besides the proprietor. The learned Tribunal, while deciding the aforesaid reference, has specifically observed that since respondent therein remained absent and on his continuous absence from the proceedings, ex-parte proceedings were initiated and ex-parte award was passed on 13.10.2008, which was set aside subsequently on 04.07.2011 and the case was kept for evidence of the respondent therein. Subsequently, at the request of learned counsel for the respondent therein, the evidence of the respondent was closed and the case was kept for arguments. Learned Tribunal, after reproducing the relevant provisions of the Act of 1947 with particular reference to section 25F declared the termination of the service of the petitioner as illegal and accordingly the same was set aside by deci