- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 27.1.1995, Annexure P-1, passed by the Labour Court, Ambala whereby it was held that he was not entitled to any relief. Through the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, he seeks quashing of the same.
(2.) The following facts emerge from his pleadings:- The petitioner joined the service of respondents in October, 1979 and continuously worked upto October, 1983, when his services were terminated. No retrenchment compensation was offered or paid to him at the time of termination of his services and as such it was violative of Section 25F of the Act. No notice was given to him. He had been visiting the office of the respondents for giving work to him but no work was given to him and ultimately, he had served notice on which the present reference was made to the Labour Court, Ambala. Persons junior to him were still working at the time of termination of his services. As such, termination of his services was against the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act). Even if the plea of the management that the petitioner remained absent from duty is accepted, he had more than four years of service to his credit. Absence from duty is a major mis-conduct and it was necessary for the management to issue a charge sheet and hold an enquiry before terminating his services. No opportunity of defence having been given, the action of the respondent-management is violative of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court erred in law in declining relief to him on the ground of delay and laches.
(3.) Respondent No. 3 contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the petitioner joined the service of answering respondent in October, 1979 and he worked till September, 1983. The services of the petitioner were never terminated but he himself remained absent and left the service of his own. As the petitioner was working as a daily wager, there was no necessity for issuance of any charge-sheet and holding of any enquiry. It was not mandatory on the part of respondent to pay retrenchment compensation as the petitioner himself abandoned his job by absenting himself.;