Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was employed as a work charged Boiler Feed Pump Attendant in the 'A' Power House, Kasimpur on 1 -4 -1964 and worked as such till 30 -4 -1966. He was taken in the regular establishment with effect from 1 -5 -1966, where he worked till 31 -1 -1967. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he got ill and applied for leave with effect from 1 -2 -1967 to 31 -3 -1967 and subsequently as his condition did not improve, he further sent an application for the extension of leave on medical ground with effect from 1 -4 -1967 to 10 -9 -1967. The petitioner attended his office on 11 -9 -1967 alongwith a certificate of fitness and there he was informed that his services have been terminated with effect from 12 -8 -1967. The contention of the employers was that the petitioner had absconded from duty with effect from 1 -4 -1967 without any application for leave and further that no leave was due to the petitioner. It was further alleged that a notice dated 5 -8 -1967 was sent to the petitioner but there was no response. Therefore, his services were terminated with effect from 12 -8 -1968. The petitioner thereafter moved the authorities for reconsideration by means of nun her of letters, but without response. The petitioner also took recourse to conciliation proceedings which led to a reference. The said reference has ultimately culminated into an award dated 18 -8 -1980. It is the said award which has been challenged by the petitioner in this Court.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. A bare perusal of the award shows that the services of the petitioner were terminate as he had absconded from duty. The pleas that he had submitted an application for leave was held to be not proved. However, it was held that conditions precedent for making of an order of retrenchment dated 12 -8 -1967 were not fulfilled in the present case. In paragraph 13 of the award the Presiding Officer, Labour Court has noticed that in view of the above findings the workman would ordinarily be entitled to restatement with back wages. The Presiding Officer has, however, observed that he is not entitled to either. As regards the back wages, the Presiding Officer has held that the workman practically kept silent for ten years. He has also recorded a finding that the workman had been extremely negligent in protecting his interest in the matter of employment. For these reasons the Presiding Officer Labour Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to get wages. The aforesaid findings have not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. In these circumstances I find no infirmity in the impugned award dated 18 -8 -1980 holding that the workman -petitioner is not entitled to get back wages. On the question of reinstatement the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, has recorded the following findings: ...In the present case there are exceptions and unusual circumstances which do not warrant workman's reinstatement. A period of more than 13 years has elapsed since the impugned order was made. The workman had been extremely negligent in safeguarding his service interests. He had admittedly been sick for more than six months before 12 -8 -1967 and therefore absent from service when the same was terminated. He proved to have applied for leave for more than four months after 31 -3 -1967. The termination of his service was not mala fide but made in the interests of public service.
(3.) IN view of the said findings, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court after considering the facts of the case held that it would not be expedient or proper to impose him on the employers but at the same time the Presiding Officer awarded two years wages at the rate he was getting in March, 1967 in lieu of reinstatement. Further relief granted by way of the said award is that the workman -petitioner shall also be entitled to get his arrears of dues, if any, plus notice pay and retrenchment compensation to which he was entitled on being retrenched on 12 -8 -67. It has been further directed that the aforesaid dues shall be paid to him within six months after being pre -audited, if necessary, and thereafter he shall be entitled to get interest at 9% (nine percent) per year.;