G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. In this writ application Mr. J.K. Mathur, appearing for the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Labour Court on the principal ground that the finding that the automtatic termination of a workman on account of his absence from duty for more than 8 days cannot be termed as retrenchment. Mr. Sharma appearing for the workman submits that the contention of Mr. Mathur on this point is not correct, but it is not necessary to decide this point in this case as the finding of the Labour Court is that the workman was not absent and his leave from 26th March, 1975 to 19th April, 1975 was sanctioned by the Management.
(2.) MR . Mathur has challenged this finding of the Labour Court also preliminarily on the ground that the workman has failed to discharge the burden of proof on this point and the document produced by him Ex. W. 6 has not been properly proved. It was also argued that the workman has admitted in Annexure 17 that he has remained absent from duty and this important admission of the workman contained in Annexure 17 has not been considered by the Labour Court on account of which the entire judgment is vitiated. I have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The crucial question to be considered in this case is whether the respondent workman remained on leave during the period commencing from 26 -3 -75 to 19 -4 -75. There is no dispute so far as leave from 13 -3 -75 to 25 -3 -75 is concerted. In case it is found that he was not on leave during this period then the only question raised by Mr. Mathur that automatic termination on account of absence from duty for more than 8 days cannot be termed as retrenchment, would come for consideration.
(3.) ANNEXURE 11 produced in this Court which was Ex. W. 6 before the Labour Court is leave record of the workman concerned. S. Nos. 1,2 and 3 of this are not in dispute. S. No. 4 which relates to the period from 25 -3 -75 to 19 -4 -75 is in dispute. It is alleged to have been signed by Mr. Naiyar, an officer of the petitioner who has also signed the earlier entries on 12th of March and 6th of March in column with the head 'sanction and signature'.;