- (1.) The petitioners, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seek quashing of the award dated 3.3.2006 (Annexure P6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala (respondent-2) whereby the termination from service of respondent-1 Workman has been held to be illegal.
(2.) The respondent-1 Workman was appointed as a Class-IV Peon on 89 days basis on 27.4.1992. His services were extended from time to time. Thereafter vide order dated 20.4.1995, his services were regularized w.e.f. 31.12.1994. He was to be on probation for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 31.12.1994. During the year 2004, the petitioners-Management terminated his services vide order dated 8.11.2004. On account of the said termination from service, respondent-1 raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act - for short). During the proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioners did not put in appearance. The Labour Court directed the petitioners to attend the Court on the date fixed but they neither attended the Court on the fixed date nor sent any information. Accordingly, they were proceeded against ex- parte. The respondent-1 Workman appeared before the Labour Court and submitted his claim. The Labour Court held that in view of the un-denied averments of the Workman, it was established that he after having served the Management for more than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination from service, has got the protection of Section 25F of the Act. The petitioners-Management, it was observed, did not comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, therefore, it stood proved that termination of his services was illegal. Accordingly, he was held entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service. However, since in his claim, he had stated that he is not un-employed, his claim for back wages was disallowed. It was, however, held that the Management is at liberty to transfer him to another place outside Chandigarh.
(3.) Ms Rita Kohli, learned Senior DAG Punjab appearing for the petitioners has submitted that respondent-1 had remained absent from duty from 28.11.2001 to 27.5.2002 and from 25.6.2002 onwards. He was served with the charge sheet dated 30.7.2002 on account of his unauthorized absence from duty. The respondent-1 did not furnish any reply to the charge sheet and a departmental inquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report held the charges to be proved against respondent-1. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to respondent-1 and his reply was called for. However, no reply was received from him and accordingly, by order dated 8.11.2004 (Annexure P2), his services were terminated on account of his absence from duty for the period from 28.11.2001 to 27.5.2002 and 25.6.2002 to 16.3.2003. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement in service.;