A dispute has been raised against employer by a workman addressed to The Office of The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), in order to intervene the issue.
Based on the petition, The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) proposed to hold joint discussion on various dated on the dispute in her Office to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute.
In the joint discussions, the worker raised his dispute through a representative over his termination of service by the Employer and demand to reinstate him with all consequential benefits from retrospective effect.
RCPL team was representative on behalf of the employer in this case.
In reply, representative of the Employer stated that the worker was absconded. Hence, the Employer tried to contact with him and served letter but due to inactive his mobile phone and the invalid address he shared during joining the employer not able to communicate with the workman and considered him as left without information. This incident was happened almost two years ago and in between the workman never contact with the employer.
The employer representative also claimed, later they came to know that the workman was involved with a Bank staff in a case of defalcate public money in the Bank branch where he was deployed. And still he is not absolved from criminal prosecution for receiving stolen money. The employer representative stated, the complainant left from his employment on his own pronouncement and hence the entire gamut of allegations, statements and averments made against the employer is unsustainable.
But the Principal Employer (a Bank) was reluctant to declare the misappropriation of the Bank’s money as claimed by the contractor (Employer).
As both the parties were adamant on their decision, no fruitful settlement took place. Due to divergent views of the parties, the conciliation officer was going to ended the dispute in failure. While the representative of the workman was in favor of referring the dispute to the Voluntary Arbitration under Section 10-A of the I.D Act, 1947, but the employer was not in favor of it as the Employer representative stated, this case has no merit for further consideration.
Further the Employer representative (RCPL) had checked all angles to get any supporting for their claim. And finally was able to produce a strong evidence, acknowledgment of separation of service by the Workman. In the EPF record of the workman, was marked as separated by the employer and subsequently the workman withdrawn his EPF amount by applying for final settlement with date of separation mentioned two years back. The representative of the Employer claimed that this evidence is enough to prove that the workman accepted his separation with the date (two years back) mentioned by the Employer.
The representative of the workman was not able to deny the said artifact submitted by the representative of the Employer and the Conciliation Officer rejected the application of reinstatement and all other demand of the worker.