ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated July 30, 2004 (Annexure P-12) whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman has been dismissed.
(2.) The petitioner-workman, at one point of time, was employee of respondent No. 2-Society as a Clerk-cum-salesman. He was appointed in the year, 1983. On account of remaining absent from September 1, 1993, he was suspended on May 17, 1994. On August 10, 1994, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet, which was replied by him on August 17, 1994. Since the reply of the petitioner-workman to the charge sheet was not found satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed to probe the matter. It appears from the record that the enquiry was proceeded ex parte against the petitioner-workman. On the basis of enquiry report, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide resolution dated March 2, 1995. The petitioner-workman challenged the legality of the termination order dated March 2, 1995 be fore the Labour Court. His claim was contested by the Society by filing a detailed reply. Their stand was that the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated on March 2, 1995 on account of his absence from September 1, 1993 till that date. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court settled the issues. Both the parties led evidence and ultimately vide the impugned award dated July 30, 2004, the claim of the petitioner-workman was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper book carefully.;