R.R. Mishra, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated August 28, 1978 passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner is a Company and has its aluminium factory situated at Renukoot in the district of Mirzapur. It had in its employment one Sri Deo Narain Singh, the respondent No. 2, who had joined the service of the company on December 13, 1967. Since the year 1974 he was working in the Rolling Mill Section of the Company. It appears that he was an accused in a murder case and was on April 16, 1975 arrested by the police and sent to Jail. The said workman, Shri Deo Narain Singh, the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) continued to be in Jail till August 25, 1976 when he was released on bail. In so far as the criminal case is concerned, the workman was ultimately acquitted. Meanwhile in so far as the petitioner's company (hereinafter referred to as the employers) are concerned, they found that the workman was absent from duty since April 16, 1975. Therefore, a registered letter dated July 12, 1975 was sent at the address of the workman and it was stated in that letter that the workman was continuously absent from duty without any intimation and that he was required to report for duty on or before July 22, 1975 and that if he did not report for duty by the said date it would be understood that he was no more interested in the job and his name would be struck of from the muster roll of the company, since nothing was heard from the workman, therefore, on July 24, 1975 the Personnel and Industrial Relations Manager, who was the competent officer, passed the following order: "Dy. P.M. His name be struck of since he has failed to report. Sd/- L.M. Shandlay, July 24, 1975."
(2.) In compliance of the said order on the same date service termination slip was prepared, signed by the aforesaid Personnel and Industrial Relations Manager and sent to the workman by registered cover. Thereafter, the workman moved an application under Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been averred in the writ petition that before the Tribunal two grounds were urged by the workman. Firstly, that the order was invalid since the employers had not obtained the permission or approval of the Tribunal under Section 6-E (2) of the Act because of the fact that the dispute concerning the workman was already pending before the Tribunal on the said date. Secondly the order of termination passed by the employers was invalid because in the eyes of law it amounted to dismissal, namely, for being absent from duty without leave. According to the workman, this could not be done without an enquiry being held.
(3.) The Industrial Tribunal after hearing the parties has in the impugned order recorded the following findings: "(a) The order of the employers dated July 24, 1975 terminating the services of the workman Deo Narain Singh was arbitrary and illegal since it was a punishment for misconduct for absence from duty imposed without recourse to disciplinary proceedings; (b) The employers were under obligation to secure approval of the Tribunal since an adjudication Case No. 75/71 in which the workman was a party was pending adjudication before the Tribunal on the date on which the employers proceeded to pass order of termination....." In view of the said findings the Tribunal has in the said impugned order quashed the order of termination dated July 24, 1975 passed by the employers and held that the workman shall be deemed to continue in service and entitled to i payment of full wages till the date of his being allowed to resume duty as if the order dated July 24, 1975 had not been passed.;