S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) The services of the workman respondent No. 2 were terminated in view of the Standing Order 9.3.12- The Standing Orders are being reproduced as hereunder : "9.3.12. Any workman who remains absent, from duty without leave, in excess of the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended for more than 10 consecutive days, he shall be deemed to have left the services of the Company of his own accord, without notice, thereby terminating his contract of service with the Company and his name will, accordingly, be struck off the rolls." Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised by the workman. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Lucknow in its award held that the termination of the petitioner's services amounted to retrenchment in the eye of law and he must be deemed to be continued in service and he is entitled for full back wages.
(2.) Being aggrieved against the award of the Labour Court, the employer Scooters India Limited has filed the present writ petition. The Standing Order was considered by this Court in the case of Vijat E. V. Eldred v. M/s. Scooters India Ltd. and others, 1992 SCC (i) 484. wherein it was observed that Clause 9.3.12. gave arbitrary power in the hands of the management to treat the services of the workman terminated, if the workman failed to attend to his duties for ten consecutive days. The powers vested in the management is unbriddled and uncanalised. it is also obnoxious for the reasons that it violates the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the workman was denied an opportunity to show cause as to what reasons had compelled him in not attending his duties. The Court was of the view that Clause 9.3.12 of the Standing Orders is opposed to public policy and is hit by Article 23 of the Contract Act.
(3.) The Civil Appeal bearing No. 3486 of 1992 with S.L.P. (C) No. 14812 of 1992 was filed by the Scooters India Limited before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court was set aside resulting into the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent workman in the High Court. it is relevant to reproduce the relevant observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court which indicated the reasons for allowing the appeal and dismissal of the writ petition. "The above facts are alone sufficient to indicate that there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ petition directly for adjudication of an industrial dispute involving the termination of disputed question of fact for which remedy under the industrial laws was available to the workman. That apart, the writ petition was filed more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action is said to have arisen and there being no cogent explanation for the delay, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of laches alone. it is also extraordinary for the High Court to have held Clause 9.3.12. of the Standing Orders as invalid. Learned counsel for the respondent rightly made no attempt to support this part of the High Court's order. in view of the fact that we are setting aside the High Court's judgment, we need not deal with this aspect in detail.";