- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard Sri K. P. Agrawal for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Sharma for the respondent.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was employed by the respondent No. 2 in 1976. On 19-7-83 he made an application for grant of leave praying for leave from 25-7-83 to 13-8-83 which was allowed. there after also he applied for leave on various dates. On 27-7-83 he was transferred from Kanpur to Dehradun but he did not join at Dehradun alleging that such transfer order is against his service condition. His service was ter minated on 11-6-84. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court Kanpur which has decided against the workman, hence this writ petition. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the Labour Court has held in paragraph-8 of the impugned award that it can be presumed that the workman aban doned his job since he was absent without leave and hence this can not be said to be a case of retrenchment. In D. K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries, 1993 (3) JT, 617, it has been held that even when a worker is absent without leave he has to be charge-sheeted and a domestic enquiry should be held against him. In this case, no charge-sheet was given against the petitioner nor was any enquiry held against himand instead his service was terminated. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the termination has to be held to be illegal. In paragraph-9 of the award it has been held that the petitioner has raised the dispute after a great delay. This does not to be correct because from the perusal of the award it appears that the petitioner initiated C. B. case No. 8 of 1987 and thus it appears that the petitioner in itiated a dispute by starting a conciliation case in the year 1987. Hence, it cannot be said that the dispute was raised after too much delay.
(3.) IN Rolston John v. Central Govern ment INdustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another, AIR 1994 SC 131, it has been held that abandonment of a job amounts to retrenchment and this is also the case in D. K. Yadav's case (supra ). Hence Section 6-N of U. P. INdustrial Disputes Act should have been complied with, but admittedly that has not been done. In view of the above, the impugned award dated 29-10-93 is illegal and is here by quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service but with back wages from 1-1-88 only, since he initiated the C. B. case only in the year 1987. The back wages will be paid with in three months.;