- (1.) This petition has been moved by the Management of M/s Escorts Limited, Plant No. I, Mathura Road, Faridabad under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 14.10.1982 (Annexure P.15).
(2.) The biref facts giving rise to this petition are that Kesar Chandrespondent joined the service of the petitioner on 30.10.1975 as Trainee by appointment letter dated 28.10.1975. After his training came to an end, he was appointed as an Inspector with effect from 1.5.1976 by an order dated 30.4.1976. The petitioner received an ESI (Information of Sickness) slip dated 11.3.1980 in which it was mentioned that the workman has been needing medical treatment and attendance with effect from 6.3.1980. In pursuance of this, he was treated on leave upto 17.3.1980. The conditions of service of the respondent and other workmen are governed by the Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short 'the Standing Orders'). Clause 37 of the Standing Orders reads in the terms that "a workman who absents himself for 10 consecutive days or overstays leave beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended for 10 consecutive days will be deemed to have left the service of the Company without notice. The Company in such case need not give any notice of termination to the workman as it will be deemed to be a case of voluntary abandonment of service." The respondent remained absent for more than ten days with effect from 18.3.1980. He was treated as having left his employment under the aforesaid clause and consequently, his name was struck off from the rolls of the petitioner. He raised a dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. In his claim statement, the respondent stated that he was appointed as Trainee on 30.10.1975 and he was made regular from 1.5.1976. As far as his absence is concerned, his case was that he had duly informed the Management through the leave application dated 31.3.1980, but he was wrongly stopped from 1.4.1980 without any charge-sheet or retrenchment compensation. After hearing the representatives of the parties and examining the evidence, the Labour Court held that "further in the interest of natural justice, the respondent should have given the opportunity to explain about his absence from duty and after decision they can take some action by rejecting his reply, which shows that the striking off the name of the workman was not justified and in order and the workman is entitled for his reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service."
(3.) In his written statement, the workman has averred that the termination of his services amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity, 'the Act') and the same was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Act. Before terminating his services, the principles of natural justice were not followed inasmuch as no notice whatsoever was given to him and the action was taken behind his back. The leave was applied on medical grounds. It is not disputed that the Standing Orders are binding but such orders cannot be in conflict with the provisions of the Act and in case of conflict, the provisions of the Act would prevail. As per clause 22(a) of the Standing Orders, full opportunity to defend himself is to be given to a workman before an order for dismissal on the ground of misconduct is to be passed. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed with costs.;