- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated the 9th August, 1991 passed by a learned Judge of this Court by which the learned Judge quashed an order striking off the name of the writ petitioner from the rolls of the Indian Oil corporation and directed the authorities concerned to allow the writ petitioner to resume his duties; forthwith and also to pay arrear emoluments as admissible to the writ petitioner as if the order striking out the petitioner's name from the rolls had not been passed. Being aggrieved by die said order the appellant Ms. Indian Oil Corporation Limited have preferred the present appeal. The writ petitioner/respondent was appointed as Equipment Operator Grade III in the Indian Oil Corporation at Haldia in 1973 and he had been working there since then. On and from 26th september, 1988 the petitioner remained absent from duties. Ultimately by a letter dated the 28th December. 1988 the Deputy General Manager (Production) of the Indian Oil Corporation informed the writ petitioner that since he did not resume his duties despite repeated directions the petitioner had lost his lien on the post of Equipment Operator, Grade - III. and in terms of Clause 14 (b) of the Standing Orders his name had been struck off from the rolls of the Corporation and he ceased to be an employee with effect from 23rd December, 1988. The writ petitioner was also directed to deposit the outstanding advance due of Rs. 24. 249. 28 paisa within 15 days. On receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner on 14. 1. 89 made a representation to the Deputy General Manager (Production) stating that he had been suffering from Peptic Ulcer and his wife had sent two letters, and all medical certificates, and that he was still under treatment as a result of which he had not been able to resume his duties as directed and prayed that he should be allowed to resume his duties when his doctor would permit him to do so. The authorities, however, did not reply to the petitioner's said representation, nor did they withdraw or cancel the order whereby the petitioner's name had been struck off from the rolls. In course of time, the petitioner moved this writ petition in June 1990 which was allowed by the learned Trial Court as stated earlier. Thereafter, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited preferred the present appeal.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the writ petitioner was absent from duties on and from the 26th September. 1988. His case is that he sent a letter on 8. 10. 1988 to his office informing the authority about his illness. The receipt of any such letter is however denied by the appellant. On 14. 10. 1988 the wife of the writ petitioner sent a letter under registered post informing that her husband was seriously ill and confind to bed from 3. 10. 1988 and was under treatment. In that letter it was also mentioned that the petitioner would resume his duties after the doctor advised him fit. The said letter was received by the Senior Production Manager on 3rd November, 1988. By a letter dated the 7th November. 1988 the Production Manager wrote to the petitioner that he had been absenting from duties with effect from 26th september, 1988 without any permission or intimation and advised the petitioner to report for duties immediately, in any case by 15th November. 1988 with a satisfactory explanation of his absence. It was also specifically mentioned in that letter that it would not be possible for the management to sanction leave to the petitioner beyond the aforesaid date, that is. 15. 11. 1988. It is the case of the petitioner that as he was seriously ill he could not report for duties and his wife sent all the Medical Certificates to the Production Manager about the illness of the petitioner and the said certificates were received by the Senior Production Manager on 21. 12. 1988. Receipt of any Medical Certificate is however denied by the appellant. By a letter dated the 1st December, 1988 addressed by the Production Manager to the petitioner the receipt of the letter of the petitioner's wife dated 14th october, 1988 was acknowledged and it was stated that the said letter was not supported by Medical Certificate and the writ petitioner was therefore, advised by a letter dated 7. 11. 1988 to resume duties latest by the 15th november, 1988 but the petitioner failed to resume duties during; the extended period. The writ petitioner was again advised in the letter dated 1st December, 1988 to report for duties immediately with a satisfactory explanation of his absence. It was also mentioned in the said letter that in case the writ petitioner did not report by 7. 12. 1988 with a satisfactory explanation as aforesaid he would be deemed to have lost lien on his appointment in the Corporation. By another letter dated the 15th december, 1988 addressed by the Production Manager the writ petitioner was asked that he had failed to resume duties during the extended period and that he was once again advised to report for duties immediately with a satisfactory explanation of his absence and in case he did not report for duties by 22. 12. 1988 with a satisfactory explanation as aforesaid he would be deemed to have lost lien on his appointment in the Corporation. In the meantime, however the petitioner's wife addressed a letter dated 12th december, 1988 to the Production Manager acknowledging the receipt of a letter of the Production Manager a few days back. By the said letter dated the 12th December, 1988 the petitioner's wife informed that her husband had been suffering from Gastric Ulcer and he was admitted into a Nursing home in Calcutta and he would join service with illness certificate. In that letter it was specifically mentioned that this was the second information. Since however the petitioner did not join, the Deputy General Manager (Production) by a letter dated 28. 12. 1988 wrote to the petitioner that the petitioner had failed to resume his duties even by the extended date and threfore he was deemed to have lost lien on the post of the Equipment operator Grade-III by his own action in terms of clause No. 14 (b) of the standing Orders and his name had accordingly been struck off from the roils of the Corporation as he had ceased to be an employee of the corporation with effect from 23\2\1988.
(3.) FOR the sake of convenience and appreciation para -14 of the standing Orders is re-produced below :- "14. Overstay of leave or absence without leave - (a) If a workman overstays beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien or, his post unless he (i) returns within ten days, of the expiry of the sanctioned leave, and (ii) explains the reasons for his overstay to the satisfaction off the General Manager or any other authorised by him in case the workman losses his Ben on his post, he shall be entitle to be kept on Bedli List. (b) If a workman absents himself without obtaining leave he will be considered to have abandoned his employment unless he (i) returns within twenty days from the commencement of such unauthorised absence and (ii) explains the reasons for his absence to the satisfaction of the General Manager or any other officer authorised by him. ";