This present case revolves around a dispute raised by a workman against his employer regarding unlawful termination, in which the workman alleged that he was terminated from service without any justified cause or due process. The matter was taken up for determination by the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), with joint discussions being facilitated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in an effort to reach an amicable settlement.
Rishik Commodeal Private Limited’s (“RCPL”) team had represented the employer during the negotiations. Our main point of contention lied on the fact that the workman had absconded from duty of his own accord and ceased all lines of communication thereafter. Despite multiple attempts, the Employer was unable to reach him due to an inactive phone number and the invalid address he had provided. Furthermore, the workman made no effort to communicate with our client even after a lapse of two years.
Through our team’s meticulous research into both the case and the workman himself, we discovered a critical piece of information that had previously been concealed from the employer; the workman was involved in a bank embezzlement case and still remains under criminal prosecution. This discovery was instrumental in highlighting
the inconsistencies in the workman’s statements and significantly strengthened our position.
Despite rigorous efforts to reach a middle ground, both parties remained firm in their respective positions, bringing the conciliation process to the brink of failure. The workman was insistent on invoking voluntary arbitration under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, leveraging our expertise, we assessed that entering arbitration would be futile and would only lead to unnecessary loss of time and resources.
In a limited frame of time, RCPL thoroughly examined all possible angles to substantiate their claim and ultimately produced a strong piece of evidence, the workman’s own acknowledgment of separation from service. The workman’s EPF records indicated that he was marked as “separated” by the Employer, and he subsequently applied for final settlement, successfully withdrawing his EPF amount.
Notably, the date of separation mentioned in the application aligned with the Employer’s claim, dated two years prior. The Employer’s representative asserted that this evidence clearly demonstrates the workman’s acceptance of his separation on the date specified by the Employer.
The workman’s representative, having failed to deny and/or dispute any of the allegations levelled against him by us, led to the conciliation officer reject the workman’s claim for reinstatement and other associated demands.
