- (1.) The petitioner, through the instant petition, has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking quashment of order dated 16.5.2001 (Annexure P-5) vide which his services were terminated so also the order dated 2.1.2002 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No. 1, refusing reference of industrial dispute raised by him to the Labour Court with a further prayer of his re-instatment with continuity of service and full back wages.
(2.) The facts, as emerged out from the petition, are that the petitioner joined the respondent No. 2 at its Branch Office i.e. respondent No. 3, as Chemist and was accordingly issued appointment letter dated 25.11.1981 (Annexure P-1), which was subsequently renewed vide letter dated 22.2.1982 (Annexure P-2). The services of the petitioner were confirmed on 4.7.1982 vide Annexure P-3 and thereafter he was promoted from time to time to the posts of Senior Chemist, Asstt. Technical Officer and Technical Officer. The petitioner was lastly promoted as Assistant Manager in the year 1997 but, as alleged by him, he did not perform any work in Supervisory, Managerial or Administrative capacity. It has been further asserted that on 4.1.2001 the petitioner proceeded on leave and when he reported back, he was not allowed to join his duties, without assigning any reason. The petitioner was issued letter dated 10.4.2001 with regard to his absence, which he replied vide Annexure P-4. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 16.5.2001. At that time he was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,703/- per month. Thereafter he served a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act) on 9.6.2001, upon the respondents. Reconciliation proceedings between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 were carried out by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, Hoshiarpur, but yielded no result. It has further been asserted that the Labour Commissioner instead of referring the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, rejected the demand notice of the petitioner vide order dated 2.1.2002 (Annexure P-10) on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "workman" as specified in Section 2(s) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
(3.) Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed joint reply. The stand taken is that the petitioner absented himself from duty from 4.1.2001, without prior permission or sanction of the competent authority and when the petitioner failed to comply with the letters written by answering respondents to him to resume his work, finding no other alternative, his services were terminated vide order dated 16.5.2001, as per clause 6-A of his appointment letter, after complying with all the necessary requirements. The petitioner had also received Rs. 92,996/- from the respondents on account of full and settlement of all his dues including gratuity. Since the petitioner was drawing wages in excess of Rs. 1,600/- and was performing his duties, as a managerial staff and not as a technically skilled worker, at the time of his termination, his demand notice was rightly rejected by the Government. Thus, dismissal of the petition has been sought.;