Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner -workman and learned Counsel for the respondent -Management. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner -workman, Sukh Ram Manjhi against the Award dated 28.1.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 2/2001, which is contained in Annexure -1, whereby the said Labour Court in a reference made by the Government of Bihar vide its notification dated 27.9.2000 which is as follows: "Whether the termination from service of workman Sri S.R. Manjhi, khalasi Staff No. 452376 Instrumentation (O) Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City by the management is justified? If not what relief workman is entitled to? came to a finding that the termination from service of workman Sri S.R. Manjhi, khalasi Staff No. 45,2376 Instrumentation (O) Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City by the management is justified? It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court committed an error of law in coming to a finding that the reference made after 14 years and the workman was terminated as per the Standing Order that he had lost his lien over the service. The loss of lien being automatic, the workman thereafter did not remain in service, is bad finding, since it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav v. M.A. Industries Ltd. : 1993 (67) FLR 111 (SC) : : (1991 -93) SCLJ 769, that no lien order is bad and in violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the Management -respondent has submitted that the workman was terminated as per the Standing Orders of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant, S.O. No. 20(xi) and according to the said clause if the workman is absent for more than 15 days he shall be presumed to have left the services of the Company on his own accord without notice. But, in the instant case, when the workman failed to report his duty, the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant waited for about four months and then sent registered notice on 5.10.1985 vide Ext. M -7 at his home address and directed him to report for duty on or before 13.10.1985. But the workman did not appear and ignored the notice and then recourse of Clause 20(xi) was taken and he cannot say that the principle of natural justice has been violated. The Management -respondent has relied upon a judgment in the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. Lidha Oraon : 2003 (4) JLJR 510. It is further submitted that in the Standing Orders of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. similar Clause 15 (x) exists and the same was upheld on the basis of the latest Supreme Court's judgment reported in : 2000 (5) SCC 65. With regard to other points taken by the workman -petitioner that in absence of any written statement the Labour Court wrongly considered the fact that the reference was made after a long delay.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Management that the question of delay is based on undisputed and admitted case and point of law can be raised at any stage, for this proposition, he has relied upon a decision in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Babu Ram : 2006 (110) FLR 540 (SC). Lastly, the Counsel for the Management -respondent submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is based on fact and it cannot be reconsidered under writ jurisdiction of Court. He has relied upon a judgment reported in : AIR 1964 SC 477 and referred to in (2010) 5 SCC 497 at para 14.;