Shiv Sharma, J. - (1.) In the instant writ petition the petitioner (for short the 'employer') seeks to assail the award dated February 2, 1994 of the Judge Labour Court Jaipur whereby the reference made to it was answered and it was held that the removal of respondent workman (hereinafter described as 'workman') w.e.f. August 20, 1983 was bad in law and the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service.
(2.) The workman was temporarily appointed by the employer on May 25, 1970. The workman submitted an application for headquarter leave from April 9, 1983 to April 10, 1983, which was sanctioned. After proceeding on leave the workman neither reported on duty nor submitted any application for extension of leave on April 11, 1983. The workman continuously remained absent from duty w.e.f. April 11, 1983 without permission and without submitting any application in regard to his absence. In view thereof a registered letter No. 2114 dated April 28, 1983 was sent by the employer to the workman at his permanent address, wherein it was stated that since the workman was availing the leave voluntarily, his act came under indiscipline, and the workman was called to explain his conduct. The workman neither reported back on duty nor gave any explanation, Again show case notice dated May 30, 1983 was issued by the employer to the workman by registered post asking the workman to show cause as to why the proceedings be not initiated against him as per the provisions of clause (xiii) (a) &, b) of Regulation 9 of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1974 (for short 'Regulations'). The workman was asked to submit his reply by June 7, 1983 and immediately to report on duty. The registered notice was sent to workman at his two addresses, available with the employer in its record. The registered notice was received on behalf of the workman by Smt. Krishna Kumari, but the workman neither reported on duty nor submitted any explanation. On June 23, 1983 again show cause notice was issued to the workman as to why his services be not terminated in terms of the provisions of Regulations for having remained voluntarily absent from duty continuously from April 11, 1983. The workman was asked to submit his reply by June 20, 1983, failing which it was stated that the proceedings as per the provisions of the Regulations shall be taken against him. The workman did not give any explanation in response to the aforesaid notices, therefore a notice was published in daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika on July 1, 1983 requiring the workman to join his duties by July 5, 1983, failing which it had to be construed that he was not interested in working with the employer and that orders of termination of his service would be issued. The employer thereafter issued order dated August 20, 1983 in respect of voluntary retirement of workman with immediate effect in terms of the notice published in the daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika and as per provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (xii) of Regulation 9 of the Regulations.
(3.) The dispute was raised by the workman against the employer. Conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the State Government. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(e) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act') referred the matter to the Labour Court, Jaipur for adjudication vide order dated July 17, 1990.;