1. The petitioner S.B.R. Mechanical Works challenges the award dated 05.04.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Navsari in Reference (LCN) No.2 of 1997, whereby, the respondentworkman was directed to be reinstated in service with 25% backwages.
2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the respondent workman was working as motorwinder with petitionercompany w.e.f.10.01.1991. The respondent workman demanded loan of Rs.10,000/ from the petitioner company, which was paid to the respondent workman vide cheque No.657297 of State Bank of India. The respondent repaid Rs.3,500/ out of loan and remaining Rs.6,500/ is outstanding. On 04.07.1995, the respondent started remaining absent without prior permission or without informing the Firm. The notice was issued to the respondent informing him to join on duty but he did not join duty. The petitioner company sent several notices dated 19.01.1996 and 29.01.1996 to respondent to report on duty and repay the outstanding loan amount of Rs.6,500/, but the respondent workman did not join duty. Ultimately, the petitioner company filed civil suit for recovery of Rs.6,500/, whereby, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Gandevi allowed the suit and directed respondentworkman to pay Rs.6,500/ with 6% interest to the petitioner company. The respondent workman raised dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, which came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference (LCN) No.2 of 1997. The Labour Court at the conclusion of the reference passed above referred judgment and award. Under the circumstances, present petition before this Court.
3. Heard Mr. Dipak Thakkar, learned advocate for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the petitionercompany and Mr. P.C. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondentworkman.
4. The perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that the termination is made without following the procedure and therefore, the workman was entitled to continue. Therefore, the Labour Court has found that the termination is illegal. However, the important aspect, which has not been properly considered by the Labour Court is that the respondent workman himself has accepted that he remained absent and did not work after 01.01.1996.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted the compromise/understanding which took place between the parties and submitted that as per the above compromise, the petitionercompany is ready and willing to pay Rs.75,000/ to the workman towards the full and final settlement within six weeks, since the petitioner company is closed.
6. In view of the above, the judgment and award of the Labour Court is modified to the effect that respondentworkman would be entitled to a lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/ (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) in lieu of the reinstatement and backwages. The said amount shall be paid within four weeks from today, by the petitioner to the respondentworkman.
Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
aruna (Z.K.SAIYED, J.)