Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as accounts clerk on 4 Nov. 1968, vide annexure P 1, and was confirmed in this post on 31 May 1969, vide annexure P2, by the Saraswati Industrial Syndicate, Ltd., Yamuna Nagar. After eight years of service, on 28 Nov. 1976, he was transferred to Saraswati Sugar Mills, Yamuna Nagar, a sister concern, in the cane department for checking the cane payments of the cashier, which was a post equivalent to accounts clerk. On 6 Jan. 1978, the cane manager of sugar mills wanted him to work in the night shift as cane clerk/weighment clerk in place of Rattan Lal, cane clerk, against which he represented as he could not be made to work as cane clerk which was a lower post in pay-scale and status than that of accounts clerk. The accounts clerk had grade III with pay-scale of Rs. 160 6-190-EB-7-253, whereas cane clerk/weighmeut clerk held grade V in the pay-scale of Rs. 127-3-154-EB 4-174. The petitioner's representation was accepted and he was not made to work on the post of cane clerk/weighment clerk.
(2.) He continued working as accounts clerk till 3 March 1979, when the cane manager ordered him to work in night shift as cane clerk in place of Sharwan Kumar. In view of the aforesaid order when the petitioner attended for duty on 5 March X 1979, he marked his presence but he was not assigned any work and this continued till 7 March 1979. On 7 March 1979, he I filed an application, annexure P6, that no work was being given to him since 5 March I 1979, although he was marking his presence R and used to go back after sitting in the I office. It is on 8 March 1979, that he received a letter from the cane manager to report for duty as per office order, dated 3 March 1979, and since he did not report for duty on that basis, he wa3 being marked absent from 5 to 8 March 1979, and a warning was issued that m case he does not attend duty in compliance with the said order, h+ will be marked absent from duty and it case of continuous absence, his services cat be dispensed with in accordance with that Standing Orders. However, it was noticed in the communication that he had been marked present in the attendance register This register obviously related to attendant register of accounts clerks and this action of the petitioner was considered as objectionable, against the rules liable to hi punished. Copy of the communication is annexure P7. On that very date, vide annexure P8, he replied back that he had been attending office regularly from 5 to 8 March 1979, and had been marking presence in the relevant register and it was only on 9 March 1979, that he was stopped to mark attendance in that register. It was then pointed out that he was an accounts clerk in which there are no shifts and the duty hours are from 8 a. m. to 6 p. m. When he was not allowed to work, he raised a demand under S. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), in April/May 1979, vide annexure P9, and claimed reinstatement and continuity of service with full back-wages. The representation was declined vide order, dated 29 Jan. 1980, annexure 510. lie again applied for reference, which was also declined by order, dated 5 Feb. 1980. annexure P11. Thereafter, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4315 of 1980, in this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authority to refer the dispute. The writ was alia wed by order, dated 13 March 1981. As a result of the same, the following question was referred for decision to the industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad : "Whether the termination of services of Sri Jai B hag wan Jain was justified and in order ? If not, to what relief is he entitled ? "
(3.) Sri M.C. Bhardwaj, Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, by an award, dated 6 Dec. 1982, decided the matter against the workman. This writ petition is against the aforesaid order.;