S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Present petition has been preferred canvassing the validity of the award rendered by the labour court and published on 9.1.1986. The conclusions in the award leaned in favour of workman Mool Chand, herein arrayed as respondent No. 3 whereby the termination of the workman was held to be suffering from the taint of illegality on the premise that termination of service amounts to retrenchment and the provisions relating to retrenchment under Industrial Disputes Act were not honoured in compliance and consequently, the workman was directed to be reinstated with full wages retrospectively.
(2.) The matrix of necessary facts is that the workman-respondent No. 3 had entered the service in the year 1971 and at the relevant time, he was serving in the petitioner's factory at Ghaziabad. He was gripped by illness and was sanctioned leave for the period 1.7.1982 and 10.7.1982. He again applied for extension of medical leave by means of an application. It appears from the record that after he had recouped from his illness, he reported for duty on 23.7.1982 only to find that his name had been struck off the attendance register. To make the long story short, the matter culminated in reference being made by the State Government to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad vide reference dated 8.12.1983 the text of which is that "whether termination/retrenchment dated 23.7.1982 was valid and legal and if not, what relief could be given to the petitioner."
(3.) I have heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - workman, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner began his argument with the submission that termination of respondent's services was predicated upon the certified standing order No. 10.1. The said order may usefully be excerpted below : "10.1. In the event of a workman remaining absent, in excess of the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment unless (1) he returns within 10 calendar days of the expiry of the period of leave and (2) gives reasonable explanation for the satisfaction of the Manager of his inability to return before the expiry of the leave period." He further submitted that order of termination was passed as a sequel to the aforestated standing order and that since the workman had absented himself beyond 10 calendar days as prescribed in the standing order, his lien stood dismantled and by this reckoning, the learned counsel suggested that the termination of the petitioner cannot be branded as retrenchment. The learned counsel conceded that no opportunity for hearing was afforded ostensibly on the hypothesis that termination was automatic as a consequence of the provisions as envisaged in the standing orders. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the labour court erred in treating the order of termination dated 23.7.2000 as one passed in antagonism of the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act read with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In opposition, Sri Y. K. Sinha, contended that the labour court rightly converged to the conclusion that the impugned order of termination amounted to retrenchment. It is further submitted that the workman had explained the entire circumstances to the concerned authority that he was still bed-bound and was convalescing and by way of abundant caution, had sent an application for extension of leave on 14.7.1982 and ultimately, reported for duty on 23rd July, 1982, when he was declared medically fit by the doctor but when he went to report for duty on 23rd July, 1982, it was revealed to him that his name had been struck off the attendance register in terms of the certified standing order and since he was not afforded opportunity, it amounted to retrenchment. The learned counsel further submitted that no opportunity was given to explain before termination of his service and therefore, the termination amounts to punishment brevi menu.;