- (1.) HEARD counsel on both sides.
(2.) THE management, the petitioner in CWJC No. 454 of 2000 on the file of this Court is the appellant in this appeal. Respondent No. 2 herein, was employed as a painter by the appellant -management. According to the management, the work man absented himself from duty with effect from 17.9.1987. The same was unauthorized absence. On 22.9.1987, respondent No. 2 sent in an application for leave for two days and the reason given was family trouble: The application did not contain the home address of the workman in terms of Clause 15 of the Standing Orders. So, on 26.9.1987, the workman was informed that his application for leave was not in proper form and he was, called upon to report for duty and further informed that action will be taken against him if he continued to be absent. He did not report for duty. No further application for leave was also sent by the workman. Therefore, in terms of Clause 15(x) of the Standing Orders, the management issued a notice dated 16.10.1987 calling upon respondent No. 2 to rejoin duty within one month of that notice, to explain the reason for his absence meanwhile and informed him that, otherwise the consequence of Clause 15(x) of the Standing Orders will follow. The said notice was sent by registered post to the home address of the workman as available in the records of the management. It was also published in the Notice Board. There was no response from the workman. Consequently, on 3.12.1987, an order was passed to the effect that respondent No. 2 is deemed to have abandoned his employment and informing him that his name was struck off from the roll. The workman, raised a dispute and the question was whether the action of the management in removing the workman was proper. The workman contended that he had been implicated in a criminal case, had been arrested and had only been released on bail on 8.12.1987 and that was the reason for his absence. The said reason was communicated to the management. Clause 15(x) of the Standing Orders relied on by the management for deeming him to be not in service, was unconstitutional since it was violative of natural justice. The workman was, therefore, entitled to be reinstated in service. The management resisted this claim by pointing out that the workman had unauthorisedly absented himself and in terms of Clause 15(x) of the Standing Orders, the action taken by the management was proper. Before the Labour Court, the management also offered to adduce evidence in support of its action. The Labour Court following a decision of the Supreme Court in (1989) 6 SCC 538, Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan purported to hold that Clause 15(x) of the Standing Orders was invalid since it violated the principles of natural justice and in view of the circumstances available, the removal of the workman was not proper. It, therefore, ordered the reinstatement of the workman with back wages. The management sought to challenge the decision of the Labour Court in the writ petition but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that since removal was in terms of Clause 15(x) of the Standing Orders and without conducting an enquiry, there was no illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved, the management has come up in this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that Clause 15(x) of the Standing Orders was in part materia with the Clause and the bipartite agreement that was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, (2000) 5 SCC 65. In that decision, according to counsel, it was held that the provision for giving of notice to the workman and giving him an opportunity to join duty was sufficient compliance with natural Justice and the ratio of the decision in Uptron India Ltd. cannot be applied to such a case. He also pointed out that the position has been reiterated by a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab and Sindh Bank v. Sakat -tar Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 214. He therefore, submitted that the very basis of the decision of the Labour Court was wrong and the learned Single Judge was clearly not justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that the principle of natural justice has been violated in this case since no notice was given to the workman even as per Clause 15 of the Standing Orders and In the light of the facts discussed by the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in not interfering with the award.;