Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) Is abandonment a retrenchment? is a standing order illegal if it provides that : an employee absent without sanctioned leave for 8 days is deemed to have left (abandoned) his service but treated to be in service if he subsequently satisfied the employer for his absence? is such a satisfaction of the employer immune from being tested in the labour court? These are some of the questions that are involved in this writ petition. This is how they arise. FACTS
(2.) Sri J. P. Sharma (the contesting respondent) was a permanent employee of the Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.. Hardwar, (the BHEL for short). The contesting respondent absented himself from 29.4.1981 without obtaining any leave. The BHEL received an application dated 4.4.1981 from the contesting respondent (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) ; requesting them to grant him leave for 15 days with effect from 29.4.1981 to 13.5.1981 for an urgent personal work. The contesting respondent had mentioned his village address in this application. The BHEL sent & letter on 9.5.1981 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) on that address denying his request, due to exigency of work, and asked him to report for duty. This letter was not served upon the contesting respondent. It came back undelivered with report that the contesting respondent was not at that address. The BHEL again sent a letter dated 10.6.1981 to the contesting respondent informing him that : * he has not reported for duty ; * he has absented himself without sanctioned leave from 29.4.1981 ; * he was, therefore, deemed to have left the employment--terminating his service contract ; and * his name was struck off from the rolls of the company with effect from 29.4.1981 under provisions of clause 8 (1) of the certified standing orders.
(3.) The contesting respondent was absent from duty as he was arrested on 29.4.1981--he was in Jail. He was released on 15.7.1981. According to him, he thereafter contacted the BHEL (Manager), but was not permitted to enter inside the factory on the ground that his name had already been struck off. The BHEL denies this. According to the BHEL, the contesting respondent never approached them but raised the industrial dispute directly : whether termination of his services on 10.6.1981 was valid or not. The Labour Court by his award dated 31.10.1983 has held that: * the termination of the service of the contesting respondent under the standing order could not be automatic. * the termination was illegal, as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated. * the termination was a retrenchment. It was illegal as no retrenchment compensation was given. * there were valid reasons for the contesting respondent to be absent without leave. The Labour Court reinstated the contesting respondent with full back wages ' and continuity of service. Hence the present writ petition. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION;