K.Ganguli, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta in Reference No. 44 of 1979 on February 2, 1984.
(2.) The matter was very hotly contested and both parties made very long arguments in support of their respective contentions. Both sides also cited a number of case laws. The admitted position seems to be as follows :- The petitioner was appointed as a subordinate staff of the respondent No. 3 in 1969 and on April 2, 1975, he was promoted to the post of clerk on probation after he had obtained his degree of Bachelor of Commerce. It is also the admitted position that soon after his promotion to the post of Clerk, the petitioner became a chronic absentee and in fact learned Tribunal found that between August, 1975 and February, 1976 the petitioner was absent on 94 days. It is also the common case of the parties that the petitioner was asked time and again to explain the cause of his frequent absence without the leave and severe warnings are given to the petitioner on atleast three occasions. The word 'warning' has some significance in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner, in fact, was reverted to the post of a sub-ordinate staff and was not confirmed in his promoted post.
(3.) It is also the admitted case that because of such prolonged absence without sanctioned leave the respondent employers terminated the service of the petitioner by a letter dated May 4, 1976 which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition.;