Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-workman has challenged the award dated 16th August, 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 511 of 1994. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court: ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh ,y- ,l- 'kekZ] iq= Jh gj izlkn 'kekZ] LVsuksxzkQj dks fnukad 13-2-75ls lsok ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk {kfriwfrZ ikusdk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \**
(2.) The Labour Court issued notice to the parties and allowed the parties to exchange their pleadings and lead evidence. On the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court framed following seven additional issues apart from reference made to it: (1) Whether the reference is illegal? (2) Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter? (3) Whether the transfer order dated 11.1.1975 is binding on the workman concerned, if so, whether the workman concerned is disobeying the transfer order? (4) Whether the workman has voluntarily abandoned the employment? (5) Whether the workman is entitled for relief of reinstatement? (6) To what further relief the workman is entitled? (7) Whether the workman has utilised four days leave and thereafter he has not presented himself for employment, if so, what is the effect of the absence on this reference?
(3.) By the impugned award the Labour Court decided the additional issues in the following manner: Additional Issue No. 1.-Against the employer. Additional Issue No. 2.-The Labour Court found that the reference is maintainable before it and it has jurisdiction to hear the same. Additional Issue No. 3.-The Labour Court have recorded findings that the transfer order of the workman was not contrary to the law, therefore, the workman was not justified in not complying the same. Additional Issue No. 4.-The Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the workman has voluntarily abandoned the employment and he has not joined his services after his transfer to Ahmedabad. Additional Issue Nos. 5 and 6.-The Labour Court has found that since the workman has not complied with the transfer order and has rushed up to the Court, therefore, it was not necessary to hold a domestic enquiry by the employer particularly when it has already been held that the workman has voluntarily abandoned the employment. Additional Issue No. 7.-The Labour Court has recorded finding regarding the effect of the workman's status after he has been transferred by impugned order as to whether he was entitled for four days' leave or not and finally Labour Court has found that the termination of the services of the workman by the employer w.e.f, 12.2.1975 was valid and legal and the workman is not entitled for any relief.;