The court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that the workman's termination was illegal, affirming entitlement to reinstatement and 50% back wages due to management's failure to prove voluntary abandonment.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

Petitioner-M/s Abhitex International has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the award dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-7), whereby Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (hereafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal'), has answered reference No. 52 of 2008 under Section 10 (1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), in favour of respondent No.2-Shri. Jamshed (workman).

2. The Tribunal held that the workman was terminated by the management in violation of Section 25F of the Act and action of the management is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith 50% back wages from the date of demand notice dated 30.07.2007.

3. Brief factual matrix of the case is that respondent No. 2- workman through a demand notice dated 30.07.2007, alleged that he was appointed as Assistant Master on 27.09.1999 with the Management on a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. He continuously worked with the management from the period 27.09.1999 to 21.07.2007 without their being any complaint against him. Workman pleaded that many times, gate keeper of the management was directed not to allow the workman to enter the premises of the industry, i.e. M/s Abhitex International, and ultimately, services of the workman were terminated on 21.07.2007 without any notice and salary of 20 days, i.e. 01.07.2007 to 20.07.2007, was also withheld by the management. Thus, workman pleaded that there being complete violation of Section 25F of the Act, he be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

4. In the written statement, petitioner-management pleaded that workman was initially appointed as Assistant Master w.e.f. 27.07.1999 and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. In fact, on account of the lean season and exigency of the work, workman was directed to report on the same status and job at the Boiler Department. Said direction was not followed by the workman and thus, he remained absent. Management pleaded that workman has raised a false dispute and no date has been disclosed by the workman that when he was present at the factory gate and who stopped him from entering the factory premises.

Thus, broadly pleaded that the demand notice was completely baseless.

5. After evaluating the evidence led by both sides, the Tribunal found substance in the pleading raised by the workman and lastly, accepted the claim raised in the demand notice. However, relief qua the back wages was granted only to the extent of 50%.

Said award dated 08.10.2013, has been assailed by the petitioner-management before this Court.

6. On the very first date, it was submitted by the petitioner-management that in pursuance of the award, the workman has been reinstated and is drawing his salary. Thus, the only issue agitated before this Court is with regard to the award of 50% back wages, on the ground that the workman cannot take advantage of his own wrong.

7. For the sake of convenience, order dated 29.05.2014, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Contends that the workman was sent notice dated 31.7.2007 (Annexure P/5) to join his duties and he replied on 3.8.2007 (Annexure P/6) that he was not being allowed to enter but did not come to join. It is submitted that even before the Labour Court the stand taken was that the management was ready to take him back. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the award the workman has been reinstated and is drawing his salary and only issue is regarding the award of 50% back wages as the workman cannot take advantage of his own wrong.

Notice of motion for 14.10.2014.

In the meantime, recovery of amount of back wages shall remain stayed."

Thereafter, once again on 16.01.2020, petitioner-Management reiterated its stand by further clarifying that in all circumstances, workman would