V.C.MISRA, J. - (1.) SHRI K.P. Agarwal Senior Advocate learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prabodh Gaur learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1, are present.
(2.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman challenging the impugned award dated 31.5.1985 (Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition) passed in favour of the employer-respondent No. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 2, having its registered head office at Delhi along with large number of branches all over India. The petitioner was recruited and appointed at Delhi and an agreement in writing had been entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 wherein the terms and conditions of the service had been enumerated. During the course of service he was posted as Gate-man at Kanpur and later on was promoted as a clerk. He desired for being promoted as loading inchargc, but since there was no vacancy at Kanpur on the said post of loading incharge, he was posted at Ludhiyana on promotion as loading incharge vide order dated 22.1.1979 issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner failed to join his duty at Ludhiyana inspite of repeated notices issued to him in the month of June, 1979 and August, 1979. Since, the petitioner did not report on duty at Ludhiyana the respondent No. 2-employer treating his absence as abandonment of his employment, terminated his services with effect from 20.11.1979. This termination order gave rise to the industrial dispute. The State Government referred the dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for adjudication to respondent No. 1. An adjudication case No. 60 of 1981 was registered. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, the respondent No. 1-Labour Court, arrived at a conclusion that, no illegality had been committed in passing of the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground of abandonment of service by the petitioner since, he did not join his services at Ludhiyana on transfer against the promoted post on his sweet will without assigning any reason. It has also been found by the Labour Court and mentioned in the award that the petitioner knowingly with full consent, had signed the appointment letter/agreement with the terms and conditions stipulated therein, one of which was regarding posting on transfer throughout India from one place to another place. After the petitioner did not join on the transferred post, the respondent No. 2-employer waited for 10 months and meanwhile asked him repeatedly to join his transferred posting, but the petitioner did not heed to the same and the employer-respondent No. 2, having no other option terminated the services of the petitioner. In doing so, the respondent No. 2 committed no illegality.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare reading of the order of removal shows that due to the alleged unauthorized absence which amounts to misconduct the petitioner's name has been removed from the rolls of the company on the assumption that he had abandoned his services. Under the said circumstances, the respondent No. 2 should have instead of terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of abandonment, should have served a charge-sheet and instituted a domestic inquiry after giving the petitioner full opportunity of hearing. Since, both the conditions were not complied with the termination order was wrong, bad and illegal and the same could not be sustained, which the Labour Court-respondent No. 1 failed to appreciate. He has further submitted that, even if it was a case of abandonment of services, even then, it could not be presumed unless and until pleaded and substantiated before the Labour Court and in any case, a charge-sheet was required to be served which had not been done. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 2 had no power to transfer an employee from Kanpur to Ludhiyana even inspite of the facts that such conditions of service had been so expressed in the appointment letter or in the standing order laying down the conditions of service.;