ORDER
Mukul Modgal, J.
1. In this writ petition an application , CM.8496/97 for early hearing was allowed on 29th July, 1998 and matter was directed to be listed for final disposal in the category of ‘Regular Matters’ in first five cases on 17.11.1998. Thereafter the matter was listed on 19th December, 2000 when none appeared for any of the parties. The matter is thereafter listed today. There is no appearance on behalf of any of the parties. Accordingly, the matter which is of the year 1994 is being taken up today for hearing.
2. This writ petition challenges the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II in I.D.No.1112 of 1984 dated 4th December, 1992.
3. By the impugned Award the Tribunal held the termination of the workman-respondent No.2 to be illegal and directed his reinstatement with full back wages and ‘continuity in service. The workman-respondent No.2 in this Court, had pleaded before the Tribunal that he had been working with the petitioner-management with effect from 1st of January, 1980 as a helper at the rate of Rs.300/- month and when workman-respondent No.2 went to resume duties on 1st of October, 1982 after expiry of sanctioned leave, he was not allowed to resume his duties and consequent complaints to the appropriate authorities and police were unsuccessful. Consequently he raised a dispute which led to a reference leading to the present award impugned in this writ petition.
4. Before the Tribunal in the written statement filed by the management, the petitioner herein pleaded that there was no dispute – between the parties which existed as on 8th of August, 1984 when the reference was made, as the concerned workman had settled the dispute fully and finally with the management on 17th of April, 1984 and the Labour Officer was duly informed of this vide letter dated 17th of April, 1984. Apart from pleading that no demand notice was served on the management, it was alleged that the workman was employed with effect from 1st of June, 1981 and went on medical leave up to 23rd of September, 1982 and he was to resume his work on 24th of September, 1982 but he had been transferred earlier Along with others to its Factory at Tikri Delhi Border by letter dated 2nd September, 1982. It is further averred that the workman failed to report at the transferred place even after 24.9.1982 when he was declared fit to resume work. The averment of the workman that he went to resume his duties on 1st of October, 1982, and was prevented from doing so was denied and the plea taken by the management was that the workman had abandoned the employment and, therefore, had not reported for duty and settled his accounts finally on 17.1.1984 and accepted his dues including notice, pay and compensation even though he was not entitled to them. The Tribunal found that the written statement filed before it was materially different from one filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and recorded a finding of fact that material contents of the written statement before the Tribunal was an afterthought and the vouchers Marked A-1 to A-3 were all found to be fabricated documents which purported to record that the workman had fully settled all his accounts. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the workman had been paid one month’s notice wages and retrenchment compensation and there was thus consequent violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is a clear finding of fact not amenable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in writ jurisdiction. In any event it is very clear and not even denied that neither charge-sheet was served nor any enquiry held prior to the termination of the services of the workman. It is also very curious that by way of full and final settlement notice pay and compensation is said to have been paid even though according to the petitioner/employer this amount was not due. In any event the plea of abandonment of services and the settlement of dues are self-contradictory. The case of the management that the workman had settled all his disputes by accepting all his dues finally has not been accepted and the finding of fact of the Tribunal on this count is unassailable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. The writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.7,500/- payable within eight weeks from today.