- (1.) Petitioner M/s. Nankana Sahib Finance Private Limited Ludhiana being aggrieved against award Annexure P4 dated July 27, 1982 vide which it was held that the termination of respondent-workman was illegal, has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The obvious prayer is for setting aside the award given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana.
(2.) While dealing with the crucial issues, the Labour Court returned a firm finding of fact that the workman started absenting from duty with effect from September 10, 1980 without any permission or intimation. A letter was sent to him on September 13, 1980 which was returned undelivered by the postal authorities. A letter was also sent to the Union of which the workman was a member. Even the Union did not intimate the address of the workman who appeared only on the last date of hearing before the Conciliation authorities. It was further held that the workman had gone to his village in September 1980 and was not present in Ludhiana and for that reason the letter written to him remained undelivered with the report that the addressee had left without address. It was further held that the workman had absented from duty. Even after so holding, the Labour Court invalidated the order of termination which, in reality, was not in existence. It was a case of simple abandonment of duty for which the petitioner only tried to secure the presence of workman. It has been averred in the petition that in fact the workman had left for Nepal and had taken another service and was not interested in the job at all as also there was no order of termination. The workman did not choose to contest this petition as inspite of repeated adjournment having been given to him, even after service he did not put in appearance and the petition was admitted. Even now he has not chosen to come and defend the petition. Written statement, too, also has not been filed.
(3.) In view of the fact that it has been clearly 'proved on the records of the case that the petitioner abandoned his service and was gainfully employed else where and in fact no order of retrenchment was ever passed, the judgment relied upon by the Labour Court reported as L. Robert D Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and anr., 1982 1 SLR 864 (SC)] was clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case.;