S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 18.2.1999 (copy Annexure P/4) vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with back wages upto 1.7.1993 (only).
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 was appointed on 23.10.1989 as a driver in the Fire Brigade. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the appointment was for 89 days and was renewed from time to time and he was not regu - larly appointed driver because his appointment was till the qualified driver was available. The services of respondent No. 2 continued upto 19.4.1993. The case of respondent No. 2 was that his services were terminated while the petitioner's case is that he left the job. The Labour Court has held that enquiry should have been conducted against respondent No. 2 for remaining absent after 19.4.1993. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that this writ petition is without merit.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that from 19.4.1993 respondent No. 2 did not come as he had left the job and he must have got better service somewhere else. Moreover, according to him, the appointment was temporary and not regular one because respondent No. 2 was not qualified. Copy of the written statement filed before the Labour Court is at Annexure P/3 with this writ petition, The stand taken in the written statement is self - contradictory. In para No. 2 of the Written statement, it has been stated that the claimant did not observe the rules and conduct of the Department and was not a trained driver, as required by the rules of the fire -brigade. In Para No. 6, it is however, stated that respondent No. 2 himself stopped coming on duty, as he got a good job better than the respondent's job. It is further stated in the said para that the petitioner sent so many persons and personally met the claimant for calling him on duty but the respondent refused to hear the request of the petitioner, If respondent No. 2 was not really qualified (we are not shown as to what are the required qualifications prescribed for the post), then there was no need to go after him and calling him back if had voluntarily left the job. Voluntarily leaving the job is one thing and remaining absent is another thing. If a person voluntarily remains absent from job from which it can be inferred that he had abandoned the job, the management could have shown that respondent No. 2 was into marked absent after 19.4.1993. This is not done. Therefore the argument that respondent No. 2 voluntarily left the job, cannot be accepted. There is nothing to show that he voluntarily left the job. Admittedly, there is no resignation and if he had voluntarily left the job by telling the petitioner, the petitioner would not have gone to call him. In view of the self -contradictory pleas taken in the written statement and also because no evidence regarding the required qualification has been shown to us and respondent No. 2 having already completed 240 days of service, we do not find it proper to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Dismissed.;