T.B. Radhakrishnan, J.@mdashThis appeal is against the decision of a learned Single Judge, refusing to interfere at the instance of the establishment with an award passed by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appealing public sector undertaking and the learned counsel representing the workman. The workman was removed from service invoking a notice alone and without further enquiry. The plea of the management was that no further enquiry was contemplated in terms of the relevant provisions and the terms of employment. The Labour Court, after admitting evidence to file, appreciated the rival contentions and concluded that the workman cannot be considered to have been on unauthorised absence or having abandoned his employment. Assimilating the entire material evidence on record, both documentary and oral, the Labour Court concluded that the workman was entitled to an order for reinstatement with 25% of backwages. An award was accordingly passed.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the establishment argued that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse inasmuch as such findings and reasoning are not arrived at on the basis of the materials on record and that the learned Single Judge has erred in affirming those findings. He argued that at any rate, the grant of an order for backwages was wholly misplaced and the award ought to have been set aside.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the workman argued that the material evidence on record clearly indicates, as held by the Labour Court and affirmed by the learned Single Judge, that the workman had reported for duty and had drawn wages and other payments and his such participation in the establishment clearly rules out any possibility of it being held that he had abandoned his employment. The learned counsel supported the findings of the Labour Court and argued that there was no ground shown for judicial review of the award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the establishment''s writ petition.
4. The question whether a person abandons employment is essentially a question of fact. As laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in
5. The Labour Court considered the aforesaid issues in the light of the available evidence and emanating inferences on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, in our view, the finding of the Labour Court cannot be said to be one which is unavailable on record. It cannot be criticised as one which could not have been arrived at all, to say that it is a decision which could be criticised as palpably perverse and hence, arbitrary infracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India. So much so, the finding of the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the award of the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with. Onto the question of award of backwages, the question whether the workman was gainfully employed while he was out of employment following the removal from service and if so, what had he earned, are also questions of facts. It has to be taken that those issues were pointedly attended to by the Tribunal. The grant of 25% backwages cannot be treated as arbitrary or vitiated on any count that it required to be visited by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That plea of the management also, therefore, fails.
For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
