CW 3479/95 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.3479/1995 Poddar Exports Jaipur Versus Judge Labour Court, Jaipur & Anr. Date of Order ::: 17/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vinendra Agrawal ) Mr. Manoj Goyal ), for petitioner None for respondent-workman Instant petition has been filed assailing Award dt.28/11/94 (Ann.3) in LCR-273/87 passed by Labour Court, Jaipur holding termination of respondent workman w.e.f. 17/09/86 as illegal and consequently directing petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity in service & back wages. Respondent workman, as alleged in his statement of claim, was initially engaged as Clerk w.e.f.29/05/84 on consolidated monthly salary of Rs.300/- which was increased to Rs. 340/- but was not permitted to work from 17/09/86 which was his alleged termination from service being in violation of S.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) and before giving effect to alleged termination, petitioner failed to give him notice or salary in lieu of notice which was pre-requisite condition to comply with S.25-F of the Act. Petitioner filed written CW 3479/95 //2// statement in which it was inter-alia averred that the workman has voluntarily abandoned the job from 17/09/86 as he has joined service on higher salary in Jaipur Dausa Golden Roadways Chandpole Jaipur. Affidavits were also filed of three representatives of petitioners, Ghanshyam Podder, Prop. Of petitioner-Firm and two of his subordinates working as employees namely Raghubir S.Rajawat, Radhey Shyam Sharda & Ram Chander, all have deposed that while the workman was on consolidated salary of Rs.340/-, he demanded for higher amount, which was not acceptable to the petitioner; as such voluntarily abandoned the job and joined on higher pay in Jaipur Dausa Roadways. Petitioner got exhibited documents (Ex. 1 to 11) in support of their written statement. While examining rival claims in para 7 of the Award, reference has been made of affidavit filed by petitioner-Firm's proprietor and his other subordinates who deposed about the fact that since the workman joined on being engaged in Jaipur Dausa Roadways on higher salary, but learned Labour Court observed that documents (Ex. 1 to 11) since were not sent to handwriting expert, no inference could be drawn about those documents being signed by respondent workman and their application for sending those documents was CW 3479/95 //3// rejected on the premise of it having been submitted after closure of the evidence. There being no counter to the evidence on record, learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate and take note of evidence which the petitioner placed on record; and recorded the finding that no material has come on record by which any inference could be drawn that workman has been engaged elsewhere and accordingly considered it to be a retrenchment w.e.f.17/09/86 and since compliance U/s 25-F of the Act has not been made, directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity in service & back wages. Despite service of notices upon respondent-workman, none appeared on his behalf. I have considered contentions of Counsel for petitioner and with his assistance, examined the material on record. Respondent-workman neither in his statement of claim nor in affidavit filed in support whereof, noted about fact that he was gainfully employed after alleged termination was given effect from 17./09/86; on the contrary, petitioner in written statement and so also affidavits duly accompanied with documents (Ex.1 to 11) filed in support whereof, throughout pleaded that respondent workman has CW 3479/95 //4// voluntarily abandoned the job as he got himself engaged in Jaipur Dausa Golden Roadways on higher salary after alleged termination given effect to from 17/09/86; and it appears that there was an objection raised and application was also filed in support whereof to send documents (Ex.1 to Ex.11) to the handwriting expert, which alone would show as to whether they were signed by respondent workman or not but that too was rejected by learned Labour Court on the premise that the application was filed after closure of the evidence and on its own, Labour Court proceeded to examine the documents and commented upon. Suffice it to say that the petitioner placed sufficient material on record by which it could be inferred that respondent workman had voluntarily abandoned the job only for the reason that he got the job on higher salary. At the same time, it was through out pleaded even by respondent workman that he was demanding higher salary which was declined by petitioner – taking note whereof, certainly inference could be drawn that he left the job voluntarily on his getting himself engaged elsewhere on higher salary in Japur Dausa Golden Raodways – in support whereof, documents (Ex.1 to 11) were got exhibited by petitioner. If at at all it was suspected by CW 3479/95 //5// respondent workman, certainly it was expected from learned Labour Court to have considered application filed by petitioner in regard to documents for being sent to the handwriting expert in seeking its opinion but that too was rejected without assigning any reason. After going through material on record, certainly this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by learned Labour Court under Award impugned is totally perverse and is not legally sustainable. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Award dt.28/11/94 (Ann.3) is hereby quashed & set aside. Record of Labour Court be sent back. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/3479CW95-17Fb.doc