- (1.) The petitioner which is a Union of employees seeks to espouse the cause of one of its members, the concerned employee, whose service had been terminated by respondent 2, the management, on 20/01/1979. According to the management, the service of the employee had been terminated in terms of the Standing Orders which provide for automatic termination by reason of unauthorised absence from duty. The Union contended that the order of termination was void for the rules of natural justice had been violated as no notice had been issued to the employee and no inquiry was conducted.
(2.) It is, of course, the case of the management that a notice had been issued, but it was returned unserved. Whatever it be, it cannot be gainsaid that the termination of the employee was without an inquiry.
(3.) The respondent government declined to make a reference of the dispute concerning the employee to the appropriate Labour court. Challenging the said order of the government, the Union approached the High court. The High court, by the impugned judgment, rejected theunion's writ petition and made various observations on the merits of the case. According to the High court, the employee had ceased to be a workman upon termination of his service. The employee was not entitled to any inquiry for his service had been terminated by reason of the Standing Orders which allowed automatic termination in case of unauthorised absence. The High court further observed that the writ petition was belated by reason of delay of two years after the government declined to make the reference.;