- (1.) THE appellant, Bihar Caustic and Chemicals Ltd. is aggrieved by a judgment dated 12th October, 1999, CWJC No. 1608 of 1998 (R) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference case No. 20/1994.
(2.) THE respondent No. 2 Ashutosh Kumar (in short the workman) was in the employment of the appellant since 1988 and his service was confirmed in 1989. On 20.5.1990, he was on weekly off and after taking leave on 21.5.1990, the workman went to his home where he suddenly fell ill and could not report for duty. The concerned workman informed about his sickness to the management vide letter dated 22.5.1990 and the management vide its letter dated 25.8.1990 asked the petitioner to join his duty. However, the workman remained absent and according to him, he went to join his duty on 17.7.1992 but he was not allowed to join. Thereafter, industrial dispute was raised and the dispute was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. It was the case of the management before the Labour Court that as per the standing order, absence of the workman beyond the period of leave, his service will be automatically terminated and his name will be stuck off from the roll of the company. The Labour Court, after considering the entire facts and evidence, came to the conclusion which read as under : "In the instant case admittedly no enquiry was held prior to termination of service of the concerned workman. It is also not in dispute that provision of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act. in fact, is mandatory has not been complied prior to striking of the name of the concerned workman from the rolls of the Company. Thus I find that order of termination by striking of the name of the concerned workman from the rolls of the Company is void illegal and not justified. Hence this point is also accordingly decided. In view of the fact that order of termination by striking of the name of the concerned workmen from the rolls of the company is void illegal, unjustified and improper, the concerned workman is deemed to be continued in service. He is entitled for all back wages with consequential benefits. Hence, this points is also decided,"
(3.) THE petitioner -appellant challenged the aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1608 of 1998 (R). The learned Single Judge after considering the facts and law. came to the conclusion that there is no perversity in the award and the conclusion of the Trial Court is based on reasons. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed.;