ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

CM APPL. 33594/2024 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8193/2024

1. The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"I) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) thereby quashing/ setting aside the impugned Award dated 22.12.2023 passed by Ms. Bhavna Kalia, Ld. Presiding Officer Labour Court-V, Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi, in the Industrial Dispute Bearing LIR No.8519/2016 titled Nadeem Ahmed Khan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.;

II) Any other or further writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) that may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued/passed in favour of the Petitioner in the interest of justice."

2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are as follows:

a. The respondent workman was employed as a Computer Operator with the petitioner company on 8th February, 2011 at the alleged last drawn salary of Rs. 19,205/- per month.

b. On one occasion, the petitioner company directed the respondent workman that he was deputed at Vrindavan, Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) effective immediately. After hearing about said deputation, the respondent allegedly denied to go to Mathura and objected to the same claiming that it was not under his scope of employment to be employed at different locations and if he was transferred, he threatened to file false litigations against the petitioner as well as its other employees.

c. It is further stated that the respondent did not reach the project location at Mathura on 23rd September, 2015 and vide an email dated 27th September, 2015, the respondent informed the petitioner company that he could not join the services as he was sick and that he will join the services on 5th October, 2015, i.e., after almost 13 days of scheduled deputation.

d. However, the respondent again failed to join the deputation pursuant to which the petitioner sent an email dated 8th October, 2015 to the respondent workman rebuking him for his misconduct and directed him to report to his duties failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him.

e. It is stated that since the respondent workman again failed to join his duties out of his own volition, it was deemed that the respondent workman has abandoned his duties with the petitioner company.

f. Pursuant to the above, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute for illegal termination which was referred by the appropriate government to the learned Labour Court for adjudication in case bearing LIR no. 8519/2016.

g. In the above said dispute, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 22nd December, 2013 deciding the claim in favour of the respondent workman by awarding him the relief of reinstatement along with 50% back wages.

h. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 22nd December, 2013, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the same.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company submitted that the impugned award is bad in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the entire facts and circumstances available on the record.

4. It is submitted that the findings given in the impugned award qua the relief of reinstatement is unreasonable as the learned Labour Court failed to substantiate the same with any evidence that would show why the workman should be reinstated when he should have been given a lump sum monetary compensation.

5. It is submitted that the impugned award is illegal insofar as it relates to the grant of 50% back wages since the same has been awarded without there being any pleadings or evidence in support of the contention.

6. It is further submitted that the respondent workman has himself stated in his deposition that he could not get any alternative employment since the prospective em