S.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in the reference made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereunder holding the dispensing with the services of the respondent workman to be a retrenchment which had been affected without complying with the mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 6-N of the Act, the said workman had been reinstated in service with full back wages, the petitioner employer has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid impugned award.
(2.) I have heard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 3 and have carefully perused the record.
(3.) The facts in bride shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No. 3 had been employed as a workman in the establishment of the petitioner in the year 1973. He had applied for leave for the period 20.4.1980 to 30.4.1980 which was duly sanctioned. According to the respondent No. 3 he could not return to duty after the expiry of the leave on account of his having fallen seriously ill and had sent an application, seeking extension of leave upto 31.5.1980 alongwith a medical certificate and on recovering from the illness, he returned to duty on 2.6.1980 alongwith a fitness certificate which was torn and thrown away refusing allotting of the duties to him. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 moved an application dated 11th June, 1980 to the management bringing the aforesaid facts to their notice and asseting that he had been repeatedly going to the factory requesting to be taken back on duty and requested that he may be taken back in service and his entire back wages may be paid to him within ten days failing which he will be compelled to take necessary legal steps. On the receipt of the aforesaid communication from the respondent No. 3 the management informed him vide the letter dated 21.6.1980 that he had not reported to duty on 1.5.1980 and subsequent to 30.4.1980 had remained absent without permission upto 21.6.1980. It was also pointed out that in the circumstances in view of the provisions contained in Standing Order 10 (j) he had lost his lien in respect of his job but still an opportunity was being afforded to him for submitting a satisfactory explanation within 24 hours from the receipt of the letter. It is claimed by the management that inspite of the aforesaid opportunity, no explanation had been submitted by the workman.;