Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. There is no appearance on behalf of the parties. There was no appearance for any party even on 19th February, 2001. On 6th October, 1999 the matter was directed to be heard in the first five cases on 17th January, 2000. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the parties, the matter, which is of the year 1997, is being taken up for hearing today.

2. The petition arises from the award dated 10th February, 1997 of the Labour Court, Delhi. The terms of the reference, as per the order dated 17th February, 1985 are as follows:

Whether the termination of services of Shri Ram Briksh is legal/justified. If not, what directions are necessary in this respect

3. The case of respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court was as under:

4. The respondent No. 2-workman was working with the management since 1964 in the Ring Frame Department, Shift-C and his last drawn wages were Rs. 775/- per month and he was performing his duties sincerely and there was no complaint against him. The management was always hostile to him on account of his being an active worker in the Union. In January, 1984 lock-out was declared in the Mill of the mangement, the petitioner herein. The lock-out was lifted on 19th April, 1984 as per the directions of this Court, and the employees were given 15 days time to join the mill i.e., upto 4th May, 1984. The respondent No. 2 had gone to his native place during the period of lock-out for the preparation of the marriage of his daughter which was to be solemnized on 3rd of May, 1984. On 4th May, 1984 he received a Telegram from the management. Prior to the receipt of the Telegram, on 27th April, 1984 the workman had written a letter requesting the management for grant of leave with effect from 3rd May, 1984 for a week, on account of his daughters impending marriage. The leave was duly sanctioned by the Labour Officer of the Mill. On expiry of the leave he reported for duty on 12th May, 1984, as 11th May, 1984 was a weekly holiday. However, the Time-Keeper refused to accept his pass and asked him to contact the Legal Department. On 12th May, 1984 he made an application but no reply was received. In spite of reporting for the duty, the workman was not allowed to join his duties. The respondent No. 2/workman had challenged the termination of his duties as there was no charge-sheet or enquiry held against him. It is stated that since 12th May, 1984 the workman was unemployed and he could not find any job in spite of his best efforts. On 6th October, 1999, this Court had passed the following order :

CM 3092/97 :

In the main petition rule was issued on July 1, 1999 and interim stay was granted on 29th April, 97. It is stated that respondent-workman is already in service of the management w.e.f. 17.9.87. The matter relates only to the grant of back wages for the period w.e.f. 12.5.84 to 16.9.87. Since rule has already been issued, interim stay is made absolute till the disposal of the writ petition. CM stands disposed of.

CW 1762/97 :

Since the question involved in this writ petition is short one, list the matter in the category of regular matters among the first five cases in the week commencing on 17.1.2000.

5. Thus the matter is now confined to the back wages with effect from 12.5.1984 to 16.9.1987 as respondent No. 2-workman is already in the service of Management by the impugned Award after 16.9.1987.

6. The workman before the Labour Court had claimed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

7. The case of the petitioner-management before the Labour Court was as under :

That the workman had been offered employment but he failed to join the service. The last drawn wages of Rs. 775/- per month by workman was disputed. It was also denied that the workman, respondent No. 2 herein had reported for duty on 12.5.1984. The management admitted the receipt of an application dated 3rd May, 1984 but denied the grant of leave for a week w.e.f. 3rd May, 1984 in a general but non-specific manner. That since the workman was late, he was not kept on duty and accordingly workman was informed vide letter dated 5th May, 1984 of termination of his services. It was further stated that the Management agreed before the Conciliation Officer on 14th August, 1984 that the workman would be allowed to join his duties w.e.f. 14th August, 1984 and he would not claim backwages but the workman refused to join the duties on the ground that he was entitled to backwages.

The Tribunal found as follows :

(a) Though the Management proved the letter Ext. MW 1/5 asking the workman to report for duty uptil 4th May, 1984, but failed to prove as to whether the said letter was duly served upon the workman as neither AD nor U.P.C. were placed on record though they were stated to be in the office of management, as deposed by MW 1. No credence can thus be given on Ext. MW 1/5. MW.1 Mahavir Prasad said that the offer to join without backwages was oral and did not form part of the record of the Conciliation Officer.

(b) Since the application for leave dated 3rd May, 1984 has been admitted in the written statement to have been received by the Management, a Public Notice Ext. MW 1/4 asking the workman to report for duty on 5th May, 1984 does not come to the aid of the management. The letter Ext. MW 1/3 clearly proved the bona fides of the workman in wanting to report for duty. The striking off the name of the workman from the Attendance Register w.e.f. 12th May, 1984 with the endorsement for not having reported for duty upto 4th May, 1984 on the plea that the workman had left the services of his own accord violates natural justice and fair play. The workmans name had been struck off by the management without any proper and fair enquiry, in spite of the leave application having been written to the management and having been proved to have been received by the management. The workman had also proved that he had reported back for duty on 12th May, 1984. Managements witness, MW-2, cannot be believed as he had stated that there was no record of leave application as none was submitted by the workman.

8. In view of the above findings, the Labour Court accordingly found that the statement of Management witness, MW-1, that workman was adamant not to join the duties without backwages was of no substance and the stand of the management that the workman had come late to join duty on 1st September, 1984 after the lifting of lock-out cannot be believed. The Labour Court found that the workman had deposed that he remained unemployed during the intervening period of termination of his services till he joined the management and he was consequently granted backwages with effect from 12.5.1984 to 16.9.1987.

9. The aforesaid findings of the Labour Court are findings of fact and there is no infirmity in the said findings and there is no logical reason to deny the workman his right to work when he reported for duty. Even assuming he was late in reporting for his duty, his services could not be terminated without issuing a charge-sheet and holding an inquiry. On the face of the oral evidence on record as found by the Labour Court the plea of the managment tha the workman was absent from his service is wholly unjustified, without merit and cannot be believed and the findings of the Labour Court are unassailable. Similarly the finding of the Labour Court that the workman remained unemployed from 12.5.1984 is unassailable.

10. Since the matter is now confined to the question of backwages, I am satisfied that the award of backwages was fully justified. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the management has acted in most unreasonable manner and the conduct of the petitioner has been bona fide and he had logical grounds to seek leave to attend the marriage of his daughter. The workman had gone to his native place on account of lock-out in the Mill and no fault can be found with his conduct. Even assuming the case of the petitioner-management that leave was denied, yet the termination of services was illegal and could not have been done without issue of a charge-sheet and holding of an enquiry. In the face of the overwhelming evidence produced by the workman the stand of the petitioner-management that the respondent No. 2-workman had abandoned his services is wholly unsustainable.

11. In view of the above, I am fully satisfied that backwages were rightly granted to the workman by the Labout Court.

12. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly with costs quantified at Rs. 7,500/- payable within 4 weeks from today.