JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court dated 30.9.1983 by which the respondent workman has been granted reinstatement with full back-wages.
3. The petitioner is a Government company engaged in various projects relating to electricity. While the Shakti Nagar Project was under construction, between the 1977-81, several cases of 'maleria' were detected amongst the workers and villagers. Thus, several persons, including the respondent workman, were employed on daily wage basis for distributing maleria tablets from 20.3.1980. By mid 1981, the said disease was brought under control and thus there was no necessity for daily wagers. Nevertheless on 15.6.1981 the petitioners offered alternative employment to the workman which was turned down. On the same day, he was also offered notice pay and retrenchment compensation which was also refused. Thus, a written notice was sent to the address of the respondent workman which was received back with the endorsement of refusal. The respondent workman raised an Industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and the same was registered as Adjudication Case No. 148 of 1981. Both the parties filed their written statement and led their evidence. Before the labour court apart from other grounds, it was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government was not the appropriate Government and as such the reference was bad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the finding of the labour court in holding that requirement of Section 6N was not compiled is perverse and against the evidence on record. The labour court has taken note of two documents E-1, E-2 in para 8 of the award and in para 9 it has held that it has not been proved that any compensation or notice pay was offered to the workman. Both the documents are on record. E-l (Annexure-3) is an offer letter dated 15.6.1981 evidencing that a months pay and 15 days compensation, totalling Rs. 675 was offered to the workman. On this letter there is an endorsement of M. V. Ahmad, supervisor, and of another official of the corporation to the effect that the workman after reading the letter, refused to accept either the letter or the money. This letter had been proved before the labour court by the said official. E-2 (Annexure-3A) is another letter addressed to his native village mentioning about E-l and mentioning his aforesaid refusal and asking him to take Rs. 675 from the Account Sections after showing the letter. This document has also been proved that it was sent by registered post but was returned with the endorsement of refusal. This entire transaction has been proved by the witness M. V. Ahrnad before the labour court. The labour court has not discussed this crucial evidence while recording the aforesaid finding in a most cursory manner. However, the counsel for the workman contends that such an offer was not compliance of Section 6N and actual payment should have been made. She has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sain Steel Products v. Naipal Singh and others, 2001 (89) FLR 356, in my view, the ratio of Sain Steels is not applicable to this case. In Sain Steel case (supra), the management had merely said that whatever was due could be collected from the office, it is in these circumstances it held that the offer was not in substantial compliance of law. She has then relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 1967 (14) FLR 356. In this case the workman was asked to collect his compensation and notice pay later, the Apex Court in these circumstances held that the offer was not substantial compliance of the section. In the present case, the total amount was mentioned including the monthly pay, etc. The workman did not dispute the amount which was offered, he blindly forgot whether the offer was made. The management is not expected to thrust the money in his pocket. Recently, the Supreme Court has, in the case of Pramed Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003 (3) AWC 1788 (SC) : 2003 (97) FLR 110, held that such a tender, as in the present case, was substantial compliance of the section. The labour court has completely lost sight of these crucial evidence in recording the aforesaid perverse finding. In my view, there was sufficient evidence on the record to hold that the provisions of 6N were complied.
5. There is another aspect of the case. It was the consistent case of the petitioner that the workman was offered alternative employment on the same wages, but he refused. When confronted during his cross-examination, the workman did not deny that any alternative appointment on same wages was offered, but said that he does not remember about the offer. Even during recording of the statement of M.V. Ahmad before the Court, his deposition was deferred on the ground of this offer of alternative employment when he said that the corporation was still prepared to give him alternative employment. This fact is evident from the order sheet of 1st and 2nd March, 1983, which is on record of the petition.
6. Considering both these factors, it appears that the workman was not interested in working but was only interested to somehow extract money from the petitioner without working. This second aspect was also very crucial to come to a just decision, but the labour court, for whatever reasons, has glossed over it.
7. Therefore, in my opinion, the finding of the labour court that provisions of Section 6N were not complied, is perverse and against overwhelming evidence on record.
8. Though the counsel for the petitioner has raised several other arguments, but in view of the findings entered above, it would only be academic to consider the other arguments.
9. In view of the discussions above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award dated 30.9.1983 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.