- (1.) PETITIONER, Teja Singh, through present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the Award (Annexure P-1) dated April 9, 1985 by which he was not held entitled to any relief by the Labour Court.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that petitioner was employed as a labourer on ad hoc basis. In the appointment letter dated July 13, 1979 (Annexure R-1/1) while detailing the terms and conditions of service, it has been men tioged that he was appointed purely on temporary basis and was not entitled to any pension and Provident Fund as also that his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason or he could be relieved without any notice. Petitioner worked only upto June 19, 1980 and thereafter absented himself and did not join duties till May 11, 1981. When he, however, wanted to. join service on August 24, 1981, he was not permitted to do sov This, obviously, led to a demand note and thereafter a reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was sought. The matter came up before the Labour Court and after recording evidence of the parties, a firm finding of fact was recorded that petitioner had in fact remained absent w. e. f. June 19, 1980 and, therefore, had abandoned his services from that date. The only point that has been mooted out is that it was not a case of abandonment of duty but was a case of termination of services as would be indicative from the various orders and once it was a case of termination of services, non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would naturally result in in-validating the said order. Mrs. Sabina, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has taken me through Annexures P-2 to P-6 and on the basis of the same, it is sought to be maintained that the services of the petitioner in fact were terminated and the Labour Court while rendering the impugned Award dated April 9, 1985 had not discussed any -' of the documents even though the same were on the records of the Labour Court.
(3.) IN so far as Annexure P-2 is concerned, it is a letter written by Sub-Divisional Engineer -and all that is mentioned therein is that petitioner had been absent from duty from May 20, 1980 to May 31, 1980 as also from June 20, 1980 till date. Necessary directions were sought by the Sub-Divisional Engineer. The Executive Engineer on July 28, 1980, in consequence of letter (Annexure P-2) written by Sub-Divisional Engineer, informed that the services of the official be terminated with immediate effect after completing all conditions of service. The Sub-Divi- -sional Engineer vide letter dated November 13, 1981 (Annexure P-4) informed back the Executive Engineer that services of petitioner, Teja Singh, had since been terminated vide letter No. 3150 dated July, 1981. It is from the contents of this letter, in particular, that it is sought to be made but that the services of petitioner were actually terminated. There is an apparent mistake in letter (Annexure P-4) in mentioning that the service of petitioner has been terminated vide letter No. 3150 dated July 25, 1981. In fact, letter No. 3150 is of July 26, 1980 and therein too it is mentioned that the services of petitioner be terminated with immediate effect after completing all formalities. Vide Annexure P- 5, the Executive Engineer addressed a letter to the Sub-Divisional Engineer telling him that he was asked vide office memo No. 3150 dated September 28, 1980 to terminate the services of petitioner. He was asking to intimate the action that had been taken in the matter latest by January 2, 1982. Annexure P-6 is a letter from the Sub-Divisional Engineer to the Executive Engineer informing the latter that the services of Teja Singh were terminated vide letter No. 3050 dated July 23, 1980 instead of December 2, 1981 due to his continuous absence from duty without intimation to the office and that he was absent from June 20, 1980 upto date. This is obviously an error in presuming that the services of petitioner had been terminated but in fact no specific orders on that behalf have been passed. In fact it has been pleaded by petitioner himself in para 5 of the petition that in fact no formal order of termination of the services of petitioner was ever passed and all that happended was that he was not permitted to join his duties. It is true that the Labour Court did not refer to these documents, it was presumably on the ground that the representative who appeared for the workman was convinced that the said documents would not make out a case of termination of services. Once it is a case of abandonment of service and not termination of services as such, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the petitioner, who was employed purely on temporary basis, having remained absent for about a year, deserves no relief from this Court under Articles 226/227. Finding no merit in the present petition, I dismiss the same. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.;