- (1.) This petition has been moved by M/s. Sadhu Forging Private Limited, Faridabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing award dated 13.10.1982 Annexure P.8.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Satbir Singh, respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'the workman') joined the service of the petitioner- Company in October, 1979. He worked there till April, 1981. In the month of April, 1981, he along with some other workmen of the petitioner started absenting from duty without any reasonable cause. This strike was declared illegal by the petitioner. On 5.5.1981, a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short 'the Act') was arrived at between the petitioner and its workmen, according to which, all the workmen except three mentioned therein were to report for duty within two weeks from 5.5.1981. Satbir Singh, respondent-workman did not report for duty even after expiry of two weeks from 5.5.1981 inspite of the fact that an intimation under registered cover was sent to him for joining duty in accordance with the settlement. The registered letter was received by him. Ultimately, on 27.5.1981, the petitioner sent another reminder to him at his original village address asking him to report for duty within two days from the receipt of this communication. He did not report for duty as he was not interested in the employment. He had started working somewhere else. This continued absence from duty amounted to abandonment or voluntary retirement of the workman. Ultimately, the workman served demand notice on the petitioner. The dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad (Haryana). After recording evidence and hearing the representatives of the parties, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad held that "in view of the above, termination amounted to retrenchment and was bad in law for noncompliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman was entitled to his reinstatement with full back-wages." Feeling aggrieved with this award, the petitioner has filed this petition.
(3.) In his written statement, the workman has inter-alia pleaded that the termination of his services amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act and the same was illegal for noncompliance of Section 25-F ibid. Notice dated 5.6.1981 (Annexure P.3) was not a proper notice under Section 25-F ibid, as there was no payment or tender of retrenchment compensation simultaneously with this notice. The strike was called off on 21.5.1981. The answering respondent-workman reported on duty as per settlement contained in Annexure P.1, but he was put off, on one pretext or the other. He had reported for duty on 4.6.1981, but he was not taken on duty by the petitioner-Management. Ultimately, he made a complaint on 15.6.1981. There was no abandonment of service or voluntary retirement. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed with costs.;