- (1.) This writ petition was admitted to Division Bench as the correctness of law laid down in Siri Ram vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. and another,1991 2 PunLR 84 was in doubt wherein it was held that termination of a workman employed with Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the PRTC) remaining absent from duty would not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), would not be attracted. The learned Single Judge in Siri Ram's case relied upon an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through Shri N.S. Cheema, General Manager vs. The Labour Court, Patiala and others, C.W.P. No. 4299 of 1981 decided on 5.4.1984 (this reliance was wrongly placed as this judgment had taken a view to the contrary to the proposition referred to above).
(2.) Gurkirat Singh respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) admittedly remained absent from duty for more than ten days without sanctioned leave. Notice was sent to him asking him to report for duty he did not comply with. Action was taken under the provisions contained in PRTC (Condition of Appointment and Regulations) 1981 which provides that a workman would lose his lien on the job if he remains absent from duty without sanctioned leave for more than ten days. The workman being aggrieved claimed a reference under the Act.
(3.) The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under section 10(1)(C) of the Act:- "Whether termination of services of Shri Gurkirat Singh workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/entitled? Case of the petitioner was that he had put in six years of service under PRTC- respondent as Driver and that his services had been wrongly terminated without any notice, charge sheet enquiry or compensation. He claimed reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages.;