JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri M. S. Vinayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Karunanidhi Yadav as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent no. s 1 and 2, Sri Shekhar Srivastava for respondent No.3-workman.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the award dated 24.11.2022 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. whereby allowing the claim of respondent No.3-workman.

3. The facts in brief arising in the present case are that respondent No.3 was employed on the post of Assistant in Grade GO at the establishment of the petitioner company at Pune, Maharashtra and was issued appointment letter on 30.3.2004. As per the appointment letter he was to work in Noida and it was further provided that the services of respondent NO.3 would be terminated by either party by serving prior written notice. It was further provided in the appointment letter that the services of the respondent-workman would be transferable and he could be transferred to any of the establishments of the petitioner whether in India or abroad. The petitioner continued to work since the date of his appointment till 5.12.2008 when his services were transferred to Chennai Branch of the petitioner. He was asked to join at Chennai by 11.12.2008. Respondent No.3 did not join at Chennai and according to the petitioner he had remained absent unauthorisedly. He was asked by means of letter dated 15.12.2008 as well as 22.12.2009 to join at Chennai failing which it will be assumed that he is not interested in continuing with his services and his services will be dispensed with. Despite the fact that the respondent did not join at Chennai an order of termination was passed on 2.1.2009. As per the order of 2nd January, 2009 issued by Group Manager, Human Resources it was stated that ample opportunity was given to the respondent to report at Chennai office but he has neither reported nor made any communication and, therefore, his services are terminated with immediate effect.

4. Respondent No.3 being aggrieved by the termination order dated 2nd January, 2009 raised an industrial dispute before Labour Court, Noida, which was duly referred and according to the reference it was stated that respondent No.3 was working on the post of driver and his services have been terminated with effect from 2nd January, 2009 and the labour court was called upon to test the validity of the termination order. Notices were issued to the petitioner who appeared and opposed the claim of the respondent. In the written submissions filed before the Labour Court it was stated that the respondent was appointed on 30.3.2004 and was transferred to Chennai office vide order dated 5.12.2008 he was supposed to report by 11th December, 2008 but he did not report to the said office. It is further stated that by not joining at Chennai office the respondent had violated the company's disciplinary policy. Even previously on a number of occasions he has also been given warning letters to join his duties and he has also absented himself from 5.12.2008 without prior intimation to the petitioner's Manager. It was further stated that as per the company policy the petitioner, in fact, had paid final amount to the petitioner. It was further stated that termination of the respondent was legal as per the company policy.

5. The Labour Court after considering the said response as well as the evidence adduced by the workman as well as by the petitioner had allowed the claim of the workman and while allowing the said claim the Labour Court has recorded that the workman was appointed with petitioner organization since 30.3.2004 on daily wages of Rs.11261/- per month. It has further been stated that allegations were levelled by the workman that the petitioner has not given him due wages and he has been asked to work for more than the normal working hours and even the wages for the overtime were due to the respondent also not paid to him. It was