Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 25.5.1987 vide which the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed, with a further prayer of his reinstatement with back wages and other benefits.
(2.) The facts discernible from the petition as well as the record appended therewith are that the petitioner-workman served respondent No. 2 management as a Senior Tracer for about ten years. Since, he had to go to Jamshedpur to attend his ailing father, he submitted his leave application dated 4.8.1983 seeking leave for three days. However, he again applied for extension of his leave for a period of three months. But his leave was not extended. He vide letter dated 19.8.1983 was directed to resume duties by 25.8.1983. According to the petitioner, due to compelling circumstances he could not resume his duties. Ultimately, vide letter dated 24.9.1983, his name was struck off from the rolls of the Company. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide the impugned award dated 25.5.1987 answered the reference against the workmen by holding that absence of workman without leave/overstayal of leave amounts to voluntarily abandonment of the duty It further holds the action of the management in terminating services of the workman, as justified and in order.
(3.) Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner-workman has filed the instant petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that his absence cannot be termed as voluntarily abandonment especially when as he applied for leave initially for three days and further applied for its extension for three months vide applications dated 4.8.1993 and 8.8.1983. He was neither afforded any opportunity to defend himself nor any enquiry was held prior to terminating his service. His case is covered by Standing Orders 20 and 21 framed under Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. The Labour Court has gone unanswered with regard to his plea that his termination amounts to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act) and that non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act renders the impugned action of termination of service, as void ab initio. The Labour Court has erred in not granting relief as per the provisions of Section 11 -A of the Act. Besides the petitioner has sought similar treatment of reinstatement with full back wages as given by the Labour Court to the workman in reference No. 154/84 decided on 17.2.1987, being similarly situated.;