- (1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of Annexures P-1, P-5 and P-10 with a further declaration that Rule 9 (b) of the Standing Orders framed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of India and also for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 4 to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication.
(2.) THE petitioner was selected and appointed as Counter Incharge under respondent No. 1, vide appointment letter dated June 15, 1977. According to the petitioner, he had been performing his duties diligently without any complaint from any quarter. It is in the month of April, 1990 that he was transferred from Balabhgarh to Bahadurgarh where he joined on April 19, 1990. It has been further stated that tourist complex was under construction and so there was no normal job for the petitioner to attend. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been transferred thirteen times without any cause or reason on account of which he was mentally disturbed and so he did not attend to his duties for a short duration. It is on August 5, 1990, when he improved from his mental depression and came to the office but was not assigned any duty. It is on August 12, 1990 that a copy of order of termination dated August 3, 1990 was served upon him, which was challenged by the petitioner to be wholly illegal and unwarranted. A demand notice was filed in the Court of Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on April 5, 1991, which was rejected on July 2, 1991. This order was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 1753 of 1992 and the Court was pleased to direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to refer the case of the petitioner to the State Government for the purpose of considering whether the dispute, raised by the petitioner, deserves to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court. Vide communication dated August 27, 1993 (Annexure P-10), reference was declined by the Government, which is being impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) PURSUANT to notice of motion issued by the Court, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Various material averments made in the petition have been controverted. It has been further stated that on petitioner's transfer from Balabhgarh to Bahadurgarh -vide order dated March 30, 1990, he joined at Bahadurgarh on April 19, 1990 and worked there only for one day and remained absent thereafter without any authorised leave or any intimation in this regard. He contravened the provisions contained in Clause 9 (b) of the Certified Standing Orders framed by the Haryana Tourism Corporation. The relevant clause reads as :- Mohd. Ahmed Ilyas vs. Haryana Tourism Corporation and Ors. (23. 09. 1994 -PHHC) Page 3 of 7 yas vs. Haryana Tourism Corporation and Ors. (23. 09. 1994 -PHHC) Page 3 of 7 "if a worker is absent without permission for more than 8 days, he should be deemed to have left service voluntarily. " Thus, as the petitioner's absence was without any cause, the respondent rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner had abandoned the job and so the order passed is in conform ity with Clause 9 (b) of the Standing Orders referred to above. The respondents justified the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Haryana, declining/rejecting the reference sought, on the ground that the same is in conformity with law.;