SUDHIR SINGH Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED
LAWS(UTN)-2012-5-11
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 07,2012

SUDHIR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 21st June, 2005 by which the petitioner's services was terminated and his name was struck off from the rolls of the Workmen's Register with retrospective effect as per Clause 8(i) of Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The facts, leading to the filing of the writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition is, that the petitioner applied for leave of 4th and 5th of May, 2005, which was sanctioned. The petitioner did not report for duty after the expiry of the leave and remained absent unauthorisedly. The petitioner has alleged in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 that he had applied for extension of his leave as he was admitted in a hospital for an ailment of depression and thereafter was shifted to another hospital for treatment of his drug addiction. The petitioner contended that he was issued a certificate of fitness on 20th September, 1995 and thereafter he reported for work and moved an application dated 23rd September, 2005, praying that he may be allowed to join the duties. No heed was paid to his application. The petitioner made several representations, which remained pending, and consequently the present writ petition was filed in the year 2007. It is alleged that while the petitioner was under treatment, the respondents issued an order dated 21st June, 2005, indicating that his services had been terminated w.e.f. 6th May, 2005.
(2.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit indicating that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter in absenting himself unauthorisedly from his duties.
(3.) The respondents contended that he was advised to improve his conduct and that the authorities also discussed the matter personally with him with regard to his chronic alcoholic tendency, and inspite of his written promise, the petitioner did not improve his conduct. The respondents contended that they were left with no alternative except to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The respondents contended that in 1997-98 the petitioner was absent for 109 days, in 1998-99 the petitioner was absent for 103.5 days, in 1999-2000 for 95 days, in 2000-01 for 120.5 days, in 2001-02 for 238 days, in 2002-03 for 243 days, in 2003-04 for 147 days and in 2004-05 the petitioner was absent for 175 days. The respondents contended that after availing two days of sanctioned leave, the petitioner did not report for duty, consequently, a notice was issued and thereafter his services was terminated for unauthorized absence under Clause 8(i) of the Standing Orders and that his name was struck off from the rolls of the employee's register.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.