RANCHI, India, Nov. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 8:

1. The appellant-workman was a permanent employee of the respondent-company since 1974 and was made to retire on 1st July, 2010. According to the workman, he was wrongly made to retire as his date of birth had not been correctly reflected in the official record for which he had raised an industrial dispute.

2. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Jamshedpur adjudicated the dispute by answering the reference in favour of the workman and corrected his date of birth as 25th January, 1954 instead of 22nd June, 1950 as was otherwise appearing in the official record. On the basis of such findings, the workman was held entitled to the differential of the salary from the date of his retirement i.e., for the period from 1 st July, 2010 to 25th January, 2014.

3. Being aggrieved by the Award, the respondent-Company filed W.P.(L) No.1030 of 2018 before the learned Writ Court, assailing therein the findings regarding the award of back wages (salary) for the period from 9 th February, 2012 to 25th January, 2014 on the ground that the respondent had, in fact, offered an opportunity to the workman to join his duties vide letter dated 8th February, 2012 but he failed to do so.

4. The learned Writ Court after going through the letter dated 8th February, 2012 modified the Award passed by the Labour Court to the extent that the workman was not held to be entitled to the salary for the period from 9th February, 2012 to 25th January, 2014.

5. Aggrieved by this finding, the workman has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court are perverse. However, we find no merit in the contention given the fact that the respondent herein had, as a matter of fact, during the pendency of the lis before the Labour Court offered appointment to the workman as evident from the letter dated 8th February, 2012 (Annexure-2 to the present appeal). Once it is not in dispute that the workman had been offered the appointment and had not joined, obviously the workman has none to blame except himself having failed to resume duty. Obviously, the respondent cannot be expected to pay the salary for the period the workman remained idle and did not chose to work by reporting for duty.

6. In such circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear the cost.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.