Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) EVEN after more than six years of elevation of learned Counsel who was appearing for employer - Respondent No. 2, it has not engaged any other counsel. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. This writ petition is directed against award dated 10.3.1997 given by Presiding officer, Labour court, Varanasi in adjudication case No. 157 of 1989. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether the action of employer -Respondent No. 2 - U.P. Rajkiya Katai Mills Ltd (Company No. 1), Mau Nath Bhanjan District Mau in terminating the services of its workman Petitioner who was security guard with effect from 23.8.1986 was just and valid or not. The Labour court held that Petitioner deliberately did not come on duty for seven months and even after receiving copy of the charge sheet did not send any reply hence services were rightly terminated. The case of the Petitioner was that he was retired soldier and was working with Respondent No. 2 since December, 1975, that on 16.7.1986 he fell and got treatment in District hospital, Azamgarh and that he remained ill till 30.8.1986. It was further pleaded that after obtaining fitness certificate he approached the employer on 30.8.1986 but he was told that his services had already been terminated on 23.8.1986.
(2.) ON 18.7.1986 employer had sent a letter to the workman Petitioner informing him that on 1.7.1986 charge sheet had been sent to him in respect of his unauthorised absence. The letter dated 18.7.1986 was received by the Petitioner on 28.7.1986. However, he sent reply to the same on 21.9.1986 through registered post. Before the Labour court employer -Respondent No. 2 further contended that the workman often remained absent without any leave. Show cause notice dated 18.7.1986 was filed by the Petitioner -workman himself before the labour court. Petitioner's case was that he received the said show cause notice on 28.7.1986. Petitioner further stated that he gave the reply to the show cause notice on 21.9.1986. The Labour court held that according to the own case of the Petitioner he remained ill till 30.8.1986 hence there was no explanation as to why reply to show cause notice was sent so late i.e. on 21.9.1986. Through the reply dated 21.9.1986 sent by the Petitioner through registered post (its copy was filed by him before the Labour court) Petitioner admitted that he had received copy of the charge sheet on 1.7.1986. However, he mentioned that due to his illness he could not give reply to the charge sheet within time. Labour court further held that the case of the Petitioner was that he was ill from 16.7.1986 to 30.8.1986 however, he could not prove that he had worked until 15.7.1986. The case of the management was that from 9.6.1986 to 15.7.1986 also Petitioner was absent.
(3.) ULTIMATELY Labour court held that services were rightly terminated on the ground of mis -conduct (unauthorised absence) after providing due opportunity to the Petitioner which he did not avail. Labour court further held that no medical certificate for the period from 9.6.1986 to 15.7.1986 was filed by the Petitioner.;