- (1.) INSTANT petition is directed against Award dt.29/04/1995 (Ann.11) whereby Labour Court, Bharatpur camp at Alwar in LCR -192/89 answered Reference (No.F.1(1)(1095/Labour/88) dt.19/09/89 in affirmative in favour of respondent -workman declaring his termination from service as illegal & unjustified; accordingly directed petitioner -Company to reinstate the workman with continuity of service along with full back wages.
(2.) AS alleged in statement of claim, the respondent -workman was engaged as Electrician in the year 1982 and was permanent employee; however, proceeded on sanctioned leave from 13/04/1987 to 12/06/87, which was extended by sending applications along with sickness certificates on 11/06/87, 19/09/87 & 13/10/87. It was admitted by petitioner employer as well that sickness certificates of Dr. RK Sinha having been sent through registered post was received on 26/06/87 and certain other letters sent on 08/09/87 & 15/09/87 were also received by petitioner in their office but since he had not reported on duty after expiry of sanctioned leave despite notices having been sent on 09/07/87 and 21/08/87, in terms of Cl.17(c) of Standing Orders, name of workman was struck from attendance register and simultaneously communication was made terminating his services vide order dt.08/09/87 as he had voluntarily abandoned his job while having not reported after expiry of sanctioned leave and having remained absent without any intimation from 19/06/87 to 08/09/87 (81 days). The workman through Union sent letter to petitioner -Company on 14/12/87 explaining that he has regularly informed the Company while extending his sanctioned leave from time to time; as such his termination from service could not be justified and he may be permitted to join the service. However, the workman also submitted application (Ann.3) before Conciliation Officer on 23/12/87, to which reply was filed by petitioner -Company on 08/02/88 (Ann.4) but since no compromise could have arrived at between the parties, finally appropriate Government made a Reference for adjudication of the dispute vide notification dt.19/09/89 (Ann.5) ad infra: "Whether action of the Manager, Universal Cylinder Ltd. in terminating services of Shri Dena Nath Mehto (duly represented by President, Rajasthan Trade Union (Rajasthan) CITU) Alwar) w.e.f. 08/09/1987 is legal and justified: if not, what relief, is the disputant entitled for ?" Respondent workman stated in his statement of claim that he was working as permanent employee in the establishment of the petitioner Company and his work was also satisfactory through out; however, he proceeded on sanctioned leave from 13/04/1987 to 12/06/87; and since he had fallen sick, could not resume back on duty after expiry of sanctioned leave but prior thereto, he sent letters seeking extension of his sanctioned leave on the ground of his sickness and finally he presented himself for reporting back on duty on 22/11/87 but was not permitted to resume his duty and the Union was also espousing his grievance and while petitioner company did not pay heed, an application was filed before Conciliation officer. The workman further alleged that before terminating his services, neither a reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to him nor any disciplinary inquiry was held for alleged absence for 81 days; as such action of terminating his services is in violation of principles of natural justice and is also in contravention of S.25 -F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"). In support of his statement of claim, the workman filed his own affidavit reiterating the allegations as referred to in statement of his claim.
(3.) PETITIONER -Company filed its written statement raising preliminary objection inter - alia that since the workman had failed to report back on duty after expiry of sanctioned leave despite adequate notices being served; as such it was considered to be a case of abandonment of job on having remained wilful absence for 81 days in terms of Standing orders and provisions of S.25 -F of the ID Act are not attracted. It has also been averred in para 2.9 that after termination of his service, the workman is running his own cycle repairing shop and is gainfully self -employed. However, it was admitted in their additional pleas that during the period while the workman was on sanctioned leave, sickness certificate issued by Dr. RK Sinha on 08/05/87 (Ex.M/4) having been sent through registered post was received in his office on 26/06/87 but as it was related to six weeks' period and even upon its expiry, when the workman did not report back on duty, notice was sent on 25/06/87 (Ex.M/1), 09/07/87 (Ex.M/2), & 21/08/87 (Ex.M/3); and despite these notices (Ex.M/1 to M/3) being sent, having failed to report back on duty, he was considered to have voluntarily abandoned the service; accordingly communication terminating his services was made on 08/09/87 (Ex.M/5).;