Satya Brata Sinha, A.C.J. - (1.) This appeal and writ application were directed to Be heard together, in view of the order passed by one of us (S.B. sINHA, J.) sitting singly dated November 12, 1998. The fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner/appellant is an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited. He was dismissed from his services in terms of the standing orders framed by the respondents under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The said order of dismissal was the subject-matter of C.R. No. 3819(W) of 1982. By a judgment and order dated March 4, 1994, the learned single Judge had, inter alia, directed: "Regard being had to the materials on record, the writ petition and the Rule are disposed of by quashing the impugned order of termination of the service of the petitioner. This judgment will not prevent the respondents from initiating any proceeding on the ground of alleged absence of the petitioner as contemplated by giving all opportunities of defence. Had he been given opportunity he would have been able to defend his case in accordance with law? Such proceedings should be initiated within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order and the enquiry, if any, should be completed within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the notice to the petitioner and the petitioner will co-operate fully with the authority without asking any unnecessary adjournment. In default to maintain time schedule the petitioner will be entitled to join and receive financial benefits. The petitioner will not, however, be entitled to join till the disposal of the enquiry. The interim order as made at the time of issuance of the Rule will, however, continue."
(2.) As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was marked as F.M.A. No. 204 of 1997 and by an interim order dated August 4, 1994, a Division Bench of this Court directed as under: "After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties we dispose of the stay application by directing that in view of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be allowed by the respondent to join service by August 10, 1994 but the proceeding will continue in accordance with law. The question of back wages will be decided in appeal. The joining of the petitioner will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents in the appeal." The fact of the matter in the aforementioned backdrop may be noticed.
(3.) The appellant/petitioner was appointed as a Junior Operator Grade-Ill and thereafter had been working as Shipper H.T. and B.B.F. Department of Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur. He allegedly sought for 'Casual Leave' for 11 days w.e.f. January 28, 1982 to February 7, 1982 and further sought for extension of such leave by his letter dated February 6, 1982 from February 8, 1982 to February 22, 1982. He further allegedly extended his leave by a letter dated February 20, 1982 w.e.f. February 23, 1982 to March 4, 1982, and also he again allegedly sought for extension of leave by a letter dated March 2, 1982 w.e.f. March 5, 1982 without pay for 90 days only. The appellant/petitioner was, however, directed to report for duty by February 22, 1982 failing which it was to be presumed that he had abandoned his service.;