M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2-5-1988 passed by the respondent No. I, along with its covering letter dated 20-5-1988. A direction is sought to the respondent No. 2 to treat the petitioner in continuous service and to give the petitioner service benefits and emoluments under the rules. The resume of the facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this writ petition may be given as under :
(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed by the respondent No. 2 as Store Munshi on 1-5-1980 at Allahabad unit. From 1-5-1980 upto November, 1981 the petitioner is said to have worked in Allahabad Unit. Thereafter Banda, which was a part of Allahabad Unit, was separated and a new Unit was created there and the petitioner's services were transferred to that Unit, where he served continuously upto 1-3-1985. To this effect he has produced a certificate of Assistant Engineer, a copy whereof is placed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On 2-3-1985 in connection with a holiday on account of Assembly elections the petitioner is said to have gone to his village. On his return he was refused permission to join the unit and his name was deleted from the muster roll on 3-3-1985. The petitioner is said to have lodged a report against the Assistant Engineer on 9-3-1985. He has placed a copy of this complaint on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. A copy of the report was sent to the labour Inspector also, which is reflected by Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He is said to have approached the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 and made a complain to the Collector, Banda giving details of his case. No action was taken on these complaints. He ultimately filed a conciliation application on 21-8-1986. The case was registered as case No. 30 of 1986. This is reflected by Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 2 had contested this application and filed a reply alleging therein that the petitioner had absented from duty. There was no reconciliation of the dispute, therefore the respondent No. 3 is said to have referred the matter to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court the respondent No. 2 filed their written statement. The petitioner could not attend the proceedings before the respondent No. 1, because there was some strike in 1988 and he is said to have fallen ill thereafter upto 30-4-1988. On 2-5-1988 when he went to Agra to enquire about the proceedings of the case he was told by his Advocate that the respondent No. I had proceeded ex parte against the petitioner had pronouncement of the award had been reserved. The petitioner was served with the award by registered post on 23-9-1988 which is said to have been delivered on 20-9-1988.
(3.) The respondent No. 2 had alleged that the petitioner's employment was to continue only upto 28-2-1985. This is altogether a new case and (his contention was unfounded and incorrect. It was not stated before the Conciliation Officer. The court of respondent No. 1 is said to have remained closed due to strike of State employees. The respondent No. 1 was obliged to inform the petitioner of his case and he could not pass the award ex parte without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner had requested the respondent No. 1 that he has filed documentary evidence before the Conciliation Officer, which may be perused. The respondent No. 1 failed to peruse those documents, which has caused great injustice to the petitioner. For absence f;om duty disciplinary action could be taken against the petitioner in accordance with law. His services could not be terminate without enquiry. The petitioner was in continuous service for more than four years and this fact was amply proved by the certificate contained in Annexure-I to the writ petition. The petitioner's termination of service was in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.';