Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Management of Roots Polycraft, filed an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P.No.26416 of 2024. The respondent, R.Mandhiri, was employed by the Management and was placed under suspension on 21.10.2020 during the Covid-19 period. The workman submitted a request on 18.01.2021 seeking revocation of suspension, which was granted by the Management on 21.10.2021. However, the workman did not report for duty and remained unauthorizedly absent. He subsequently raised a dispute claiming he was orally terminated. The Labour Court found that the suspension was not revoked and granted reinstatement with back wages. The Management challenged this before the High Court. The High Court noted that the suspension order (Ex.W8) and the revocation order (Ex.W13) were both marked by the workman himself before the Labour Court, contradicting the Labour Court's finding. Additionally, the Labour Court relied on a DVD (Ex.W60) without a clear manuscript, which is not reliable. During cross examination, the workman admitted that the Management agreed to provide employment and asked him to report for duty, and that the Management was ready and willing to take him back. The High Court held that the Labour Court's finding of oral termination is perverse and contrary to the evidence. The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the award of the Labour Court was quashed. No costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Oral Termination - Suspension Revocation - The Labour Court erroneously held that suspension was not revoked despite the workman himself marking the revocation order (Ex.W13) and the suspension order (Ex.W8). The finding that the workman was orally terminated is contrary to the documents on record. (Paras 2-4) B) Evidence - DVD without Manuscript - The Labour Court relied on a DVD (Ex.W60) without a clear manuscript, which is not reliable evidence. (Para 4) C) Cross Examination - Workman's Admission - During cross examination, the workman admitted that the management agreed to provide employment and asked him to report for duty, and that the management was ready and willing to take him back. This contradicts the claim of oral termination. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court's finding that the workman was orally terminated and entitled to reinstatement with back wages is sustainable in light of documentary evidence showing suspension was revoked and workman failed to report for duty.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.26416 of 2024 is set aside. Consequently, the award of the Labour Court is quashed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Labour Court cannot ignore documentary evidence
- Suspension revocation order must be considered
- Oral termination cannot be inferred when management willing to take back workman
- DVD without manuscript is not reliable evidence
