Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2420 (DEL)

AVDHESH KUMAR v. S. S. ENGG. WORKS

2007-09-24

Hima Kohli

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the no relief award dated 20. 11. 2006 passed against him by the Labour Court in ID no. 319/2005. The reference made by the appropriate government on 21. 9. 2005, was to the effect that whether the services of the petitioner had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits, was he entitled to. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the impugned award is based on misappreciation of facts by the Labour Court on the ground that it failed to take into consideration the certificate dated 22. 4. 1996, issued by the management (Ex. WW1/6), wherein the management certified that the petitioner/ workman was working with the respondent/ management against the post of `senior fitter'. He submits that this certificate is contradictory to the averments made by the respondent/ management to the effect that the petitioner/ workman was working with the management as a daily wager since July, 2001. ( 3 ) THE crux of the issue is as to whether the petitioner/ workman voluntarily resigned and left the services of the respondent/ management on 30. 4. 2004 or not. Taking into consideration the documents admitted by the petitioner/ workman in his cross-examination, namely, payment voucher dated 30. 4. 2004 of Rs. 6050/- (Ex WW1/m1) duly signed by the petitioner/ workman, the labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the said voucher shows that the amount was received by the petitioner/ workman in cash from the management in full and final settlement of all dues. It is recorded in the impugned award that there was no denial by the petitioner/ workman that the management had taken his signatures forcibly. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that fact of the matter was that the management had forced the petitioner to sign on blank documents and subsequent thereto he has filed a complaint dated 21. 8. 2004 (Ex. WW1/1) with the police station wherein it was alleged that on 20. 8. 2004, his signatures had been obtained forcibly on blank papers and vouchers with revenue receipts. 8. 2004 (Ex. WW1/1) with the police station wherein it was alleged that on 20. 8. 2004, his signatures had been obtained forcibly on blank papers and vouchers with revenue receipts. After taking note of the said statement, the Labour Court observed that the same was a sheer after thought on the part of the petitioner/ workman as he had left the job on 30. 4. 2004, whereas the purported complaint was made by him after a period of four months i. e. on 21. 8. 2004 There is no other argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. ( 5 ) THERE is no reason for the Court to arrive at a conclusion +that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, the preponderance of probabilities in arriving at the conclusion which the Labour Court did, was perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the record. On the contrary, the facts as culled out from the record and the conclusion arrived at in the impugned award, support the findings of the Labour Court. ( 6 ) THERE appears to be no illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the award which warrants interference. For the said reason,the writ petition and the pending application are dismissed in limine as being devoid of merits.