1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1617 OF 2008 M/s. S.M. Textiles ..Petitioner. Vs. Mallappa Ramappa Rampure ..Respondent. .... Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 18th June, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business of a power loom at Ichalkaranji. The Respondent was engaged as a weaver from 14th February, 1992. The case of the Respondent is that his services were terminated in February 1997 in breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A reference was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to the Labour Court for an adjudication into the claim of the Respondent for reinstatement from 14th February, 1997 together with continuity of service and backwages and an award was initially passed on 7th April, 2005 allowing the claim of the Respondent workman. In a writ proceeding filed before this Court, the award was set aside by a judgment dated 26th March, 2007 and the proceedings were remitted back to the Labour Court for a decision afresh. The 2 Labour Court allowed the reference by its impugned judgment dated 11th May, 2007. 2. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was an unlawful termination of the services of the Respondent. However, the Labour Court has declined to allow reinstatement and directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as and by way of compensation to the Respondent. On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been urged by the learned counsel that the Petitioner had filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.4,517/- lent and advanced to the Respondent workman together with interest. The aforesaid suit, Regular Civil Suit 123 of 1998 was decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on 30th August, 2003. The learned counsel submitted that during the course of his examination-in-chief as a Defendant to the suit, the Respondent had clearly accepted that he had left the services of the Petitioner. Moreover, even in the course of his cross examination there were admissions of the Respondent to the effect that he had left service. In these circumstances, it was urged that the Labour Court ought to have considered the case of the Respondent himself in the course of his evidence in the civil suit. Consequently, it was submitted that 3 the award of the Labour Court suffers from a clear error apparent and would require to be interfered with. 3. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 1st April, 2008 with a direction that the matter may be heard and finally disposed of at the stage of admission. There is an office noting to the effect that the Respondent has been served. The Respondent has not appeared despite service of the notice. The Petition is being finally disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Court on 1st April, 2008. 4. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner by the learned counsel. The Labour Court was of the view that when the employer takes a defence that the workman had abandoned his job, it was necessary for him to conduct an enquiry since abandonment depends upon the intention of the workman. The Labour Court was of the view that despite noting that the workman was not on duty from 1st February, 1997, the employer had in this case not even sent a notice until June 1997 nor was any enquiry conducted. The muster rolls were not produced. The Labour Court held that it would appear from the 4 evidence that the workman had taken an advance of Rs.4,517/- from the employer but it was not possible to infer that the workman would leave his service merely in order to avoid his obligation to refund the advance. The termination was in these circumstances held not to be proper. However, the Labour Court was of the view that the workman had not adduced evidence to establish that he was not gainfully employed and therefore, there was no question of awarding backwages. Besides this, it was also found by the Labour Court that the relations between the parties were strained. In these circumstances, compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded in lieu of reinstatement. 5. In paragraph 17 of the Petition there is a specific averment that the evidence of the Respondent and the judgment of the Civil Court were placed on the record of the Labour Court. Similarly in the grounds of the Petition including ground (c) and (e) there is a reference to the admissions of the Respondent in the course of the evidence in the Civil Court. A perusal of the evidence of the Respondent in the Civil Suit (Regular Civil Suit 123 of 1998) would show that it was the case of the Respondent there that he had left the services of the Petitioner. Both in paragraph 2 of his 5 examination-in-chief and in paragraph 6 of the cross examination, the Respondent has categorically admitted that it was he who had left service. Once this was the accepted position, the Labour Court was manifestly in error in holding that it is necessary for the Petitioner to conduct an enquiry on the issue of abandonment of service or to address a letter to the Respondent calling upon him to report for duty. The Respondent's case before the Civil Court clearly shows that he had accepted the position that he had voluntarily left service. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Labour Court that there was an illegal termination is completely vitiated and contrary to the evidence on the record. An award of compensation or for that matter the grant of any relief was in the circumstances not warranted. 6. The award of the Industrial Court will therefore have to be interfered with in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution since it suffers from a manifest perversity and a failure to consider the material aspects of the evidence on the record. The Petition will therefore have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The award of the Labour Court dated 11th 6 May, 2007 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Reference (IDA) 6 of 1996 shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. *****