SAEEDULLAH Versus ZAFARUDDIN

DECISION

The applicant had filed a petition before the Labour Court for reinstatement and he was ordered to be reinstated. The order was honoured only in the breach and he had been constrained to file a complaint under section 54 of the I.R.O.

2. Charge was framed after the statement of the applicant had been recorded and the respondent was examined. His defence was that his factory had been closed and as he had wound up his business, he could not reinstate the applicant and had paid him Rs.20,000 instead by way of settlement.

3. The respondent had produced 2 witnesses by the names of Sharfuddin and Qamaruddin in support of his version. They stated that the respondent had paid Rs.20,000 by way of settlement in their presence and as the differences were satisfactorily patched up, the respondent did not get the receipt by way of acknowledgement.

4. The version as furnished by the respondent passed muster before the Presiding Officer. He had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses and the parties, and chose to believe the respondent. Opinions may differ. But that is not enough. In the absence of any material irregularity or illegality, no interference can be made.

In the circumstances there is no exception to be taken to the impugned order. I will therefore dismiss the application.

A.A./2088/Lb.S Application dismissed.