R.R.K.Trivedi, J. - (1.) In this writ petition M/s. U. P. State Textile Corporation Spinning Mills, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the Mill) has challenged the award dated March 31, 1984, given by the Labour Court, Agra, in Adjudication Case No.62 of 1980. Respondent No. 3 Sital Prasad was employed as reeler in the Mill on September 30, 1977. He was terminated from service on April 21, 1979. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on December 27, 1979.
(2.) Case of Respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court was that on April 5, 1979, strike took place in the Mill and on account of the prevailing tension, workmen could not go to the Mill. On April 8, 1979 the Manager, Labour Welfare Officer and security guard of the Mill approached the petitioner and compelled him to go to the Mill. On his refusal to go he was severely beaten as a result of which he was hospitalised and remained there from April 13, 1979 to April 21, 1979. When he approached the Mill authorities, he was informed that on account of his absence from April 5, 1979 to April 20, 1979, his name has been struck off from the roll. On April 20, 1979, he moved an application requesting for permission to work on the post which was not given. Consequently, he raised an industrial dispute. He also filed a criminal complaint for his alleged beating by the officials of the Mill.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner, on the other hand, was that Respondent No. 3 absented himself from April 5, 1979 without any leave or information and remained absent for 15 days and, therefore, by operation of para. 14 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the Mill, his services came to an end automatically. The case of the petitioner further was that there was no strike in the Mill and there was only a dispute between the two Unions and arrests of some workmen were made. Some other legal challenges were also raised before the Labour Court which have not been passed in this Court, hence they are not required to be mentioned.;