ROOP NARAIN SHUKLA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed with respondent No. 2. At the relevant time, he was performing a job of inspection and testing of hydraulic pump. He was drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 10. 69 per day. The employment of the petitioner came to be terminated by notice dated September 15, 1976 on the ground that he had absented from duty with effect from September 3, 1976 to September 15, 1976 without any intimation to office. The termination of employment was on the ground that the petitioner has thus left his employment of his own accord and his name was struck off from the rolls, as per Clause 27 (1) of the Certified Standing Order of the factory. By the same notice, the petitioner was advised to collect all the legal dues from the accounts department of the factory on any working day. The petitioner made a grievance regarding his termination. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which eventually came to be reffered for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad.

(2.) BEFORE the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner contended that on August 1, 1976 while he was on duty the Plant Manager abused him on the ground out of six pumps inspected by the petitioner, four were rejected and only two were passed and thus he has shown total inefficiency in his performance. Thereafter, from August 3, 1976, the petitioner was made to sit at the gate of the factory, petitioner further claims that from August 6, 1976 to August 31, 1976 he obtained leave. On August 14, 1976 when he arrived at the factory he was not allowed to enter the gate of the factory. The petitioner claims that on September 14, 1976 he had made a representation to the Manager (Personnel) of the factory to allow him to work, but that effort went in vain. He claims that on Septemeber 16, 1976 he had obtained a gate pass to leave the factory early as he was not keeping good health. According to him he was willing to attend the work but was thus prevented. Thus, he claims that he has not absented himself from duty. The further contention was that the termination of the employment of the petitioner amounted to retrenchment and, therefore, it was necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since that compliance was not made, the termination of employment was illegal.

(3.) THE Management (respondent No. 2) contended that from September 3, 1976 to September 15, 1976 the petitioner absented from duty without obtaining proper leave and thus exposed himself to the consequences as per the Certified Standing Order of the factory, which enabled the management to terminate his employment on the ground of absence for a span of period mentioned in the Standing Order.