S. J.M. International Ltd. v. Jamuna Das

1. These two petitions are disposed of by this common order since the facts in this case are identical; the dispute raised by the respondent-workman before the Labour Court was identical; the Award made by the Labour Court is also identical and the submissions of the parties. made before this Court are also the same. For the sake of convenience, I am dealing with the facts of WP(C) No. 903/2009 which assails the orders passed by the Labour Court in the reference made in respect of Shri Mani Ram.

2. The petitioner management has assailed the award dated 25.0I.2008 passed by the Labour Courl XII, Karkardooma Coufts in ID No.96l06/04 arising out of reference made by the appropriate government on 26.I0.2004 in the following terms: "Whether the services of Sh. Mani Ram, s/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. By the impugned award, the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent workman, and in lieu of reinstatement the Labour Court has granted compensation of Rs.39,6501- to the respondent workman.

4. The case the respondent has made out in the statement of claim is that he was a workman employed with the petitioner management. He claimed that his services had been wrongfully tenninated. He claimed his retrenchment to be in breach of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,,L947. The further plea of the workman was that when he went to the office of the petitioner on 22.03.2004, he was beaten by the goondas of the I petitioner, who threatened to kill him. His signatures were forcibly taken on stamp paper, revenue stamp, register etc. in respect whereof he has also filed a complaint at Nangloi Police Station on27.03-2004-

5. The petitioner filed its written statement taking the plea that the respondent was not its employee. It was also pleaded that the respondent resigned from service after taking full and final dues from the management. The petitioner sought to place reliance on the resignation letter dated 20.12.2004 stated to have been signed by the respondent. The appointment letter of the respondent was produced in evidence and marked Exh. MW 1/1. There is no dispute about the fact that the appointment letter dated 01.[1] 1.200I Exh. MW 1/1 bears the signature of the respondent workman in English.

6. The letter of resignation was exhibited through MW 1 as Exh. MW Il[2] and the document showing the settlement of account of the respondent was exhibited as Exh. MW 1/3. Both these documents also purportedly had the signatures of the respondent in English language. The respondent, it appears, denied his signatures on Exh. MW ll[2] andExh. MW 1/3.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the t-rrst issue framed before the Labour Couft was whether the employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. The second issue was whether the workman had left/resigned from services of the management after taking full and final dues from the management. The first issue was decided in favour of the workman. In relation to the finding on this issue, there is no challenge.

8. So far as issue no.2 is concerned, the Labour Court observed that the.I 't (, 2'; \ respondent had denied his signatures on Exh. MW Il[2] and MW 1/3. The respondent had signed his statement of claim in Hindi. The petitioner had failed to produce any expert evidence to establish the signatures of the respondent on Exh. MW Il[2] and Exh. MW 1/3 which had been denied by him. On this basis, the Labour Court has proceeded to decide the issue in favour of the respondent workman, by holding that the petitioner had not been able to establish its defence - of ihe respondent having resigned from service voluntarilv.

9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that the Labour Court has committed an effor in not comparing the signatures on Exh. MW 1/1 with the signatures on Exh. MW 712 and MW 1/3. Even if expert evidence had not been led, the Labour Court could have itself compared the admitted signatures on Exh. MW 1/1 with the disputed signatures on Exh. M\M ll[2] andMW 1/3.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. His submission is that the respondent had not signed the letter of resignation or the statement of account. He submits that it was for the petitioner to produce the expert evidence to prove the respondents signature on the disputed documents as the respondent had denied the signatures on these documents during his cross examination. 1 1. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, from a perusal of the impugned award it appears to me that it escaped the attention of the Labour Court that admitted signatures of the respondent in English language were available on record on Exh. MW lll, and the Labour Court should have t I, '2t compared the said admitted signatures of the respondent with the disputed signatures on Exh. MW ll[2] and Exh. MW 1/3 on its own, even if expert evidence had not been led by the petitioner. Even after expert evidence is received in a given case, it ultimately befalls the court to accept or reject the expert evidence, and to accept, or reject the signatures as of the person to whom they are attributed. The Court is not bound to accept the experts evidence and can reach its own conclusions even contrary to the evidence led by the expert for good and sufficient reasons. Therefore, the Labour Court, even in the absence of expert evidence, should have proceeded to compare the signatures on Exh. MW 1/1 with the disputed signatures on Exh. MW Il[2] andExh. MW 1/3.

12. I am of the view that the said lacuna has vitiated the impugned award and the said aspect needs reconsideration by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the impugned awards are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court concerned to again appreciate the evidence and render a fiesh award without in any lnanner being influenced by the award passed today.

13. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 05.03.20t[3]. Since the matter has been pending for quite some time, the Labour Couft should decide the reference afresh within six months on the remanded aspect. SANGHI, J. FEBRUARY 11. 2OI[3] ST,\. _ I Y Ar,,{h hwt )19qll \a*o^"/.)TV, V'^*