V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) In the present writ petition, employer petitioner-M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Goverdhan Road, Mathura is assailing the validity of the award dated 30.11.1987 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) published on 4.2.1988, by means of which termination of respondent-workman has been held to be illegal and directives have been issued for reinstatement with back wages.
(2.) Brief background of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office at 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg 'Kailash' New Delhi, and a factory at Goverdhan Road, Mathura. Respondent No. 1 had been discharging his duties as workman (store helper) in the aforementioned company. He lost his lien on appointment under clause (j) of Standing Order No. 10 of the Model Standing Orders under the U.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, which were applicable to the petitioner's establishment, as till that time draft standing orders had not been certified. Respondent No. 1 applied for leave from 12.6.1982 to 25.6.1982, but the leave was sanctioned from 18.6.1982 to 19.6.1982 only. Respondent No. 1 did not report for duty on 20.6.1982, as he was supposed to do. Later on, petitioner received a letter from the aforesaid workman requesting for extension of leave upto 1.7.1982 on the ground of sickness of his brother. This application was allowed. Thereafter another leave application was sent on 1.7.1982 by the respondent-workman seeking extension of leave upto 7.7.1982, again on the ground of sickness of his brother. Second application was rejected, and he was informed through telegram on 6.7.1982 at his home address. The workman in spite of the aforesaid telegram did not report for duty and kept himself away from the work unauthorisedly. Thereafter on 14.7.1982 another application was received from him requesting for leave from 10.7.1982 till 14.7.1982, this time on the ground of his own sickness. None of these applications were supported by any medical certificate, and were not at all in consonance with the provisions as contained in Standing Order No. 10 (j), which lays down requirement that any application for extension of leave should be made sufficiently in time, so that the employee can receive decision of the management sanctioning or refusing the leave. The workman is also required to send a self-addressed duly stamped envelope or prepaid telegram for the reply. On 13.7.1982, another telegram was sent to the workman asking him to join the duty immediately, as his leave application had been rejected. The concerned workman did not report for duty till 31.7.1982. Thereafter, the provisions of Standing Order No. 10(j) were invoked and the workman was treated to have lost his lien on appointment. The workman was accordingly informed, and his name was removed from the roll of the petitioner-company. Thereafter, the workman raised industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Agra, by means of Notification dated 22.12.1983, and the same was registered as Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1984.
(3.) Both the employer and employee filed their written statements. Rejoinder statements were also exchanged inter se parities. Before the Labour Court evidence both documentary as well as oral was adduced. The workman produced himself and on behalf of the petitioner Sri S.K. Nandwani appeared. The Labour Court, thereafter passed the award on 30.11.1987, which was published on 4.2.1988. Against this award, the present writ petition has been filed.;