AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited has challenged the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi dated 7.8.1996, in Ref. Case No. 7 of 1990, wherein it was held that the dismissal or removal of the concerned workman under Clause 15 (X) of the Standing Order is not valid and legal and that Ext. -E by which name of the concerned workman was struck off from the rolls of the corporation is not legal and justified and thereby the concerned workman is entitled to his salary and all the consequential benefits deeming him to be in service.... .
(2.) FORM the impugned award it appears that the Government of Bihar referred the following disputes for adjudication : "Whether dismissal of Somra Oraon is justified? if not what relief is entitled to and since when? The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 had joined the service of the management of the Corporation on 22.7.1970, as a Mazdoor, and he later upgraded as a Points Man Grad 'G ' with effect from 31.5.1978. The concerned workman was absenting himself without any information since 1.5.1984. Since no information was received from his side for grant of leave showing reasonable cause of his absence in terms of the provisions contained in the Certified Standing Order till 25th June, the Deputy Manager informed him of possible consequence with direction to report for duty within three days from the receipt of the letter. Since no reply was received he was again given a chance to report on duty. Accordingly by Issuing of memo No. 1191 dated 12th September, 1984, in which it was clearly mentioned that if he failed to report for duty within one month from the date of issue of the letter, action would be taken to terminate his lien on his appointment as per existing Rules of the Corporation but no reply was received from the concerned workman to join his duty and therefore, finding no alternative, the concerned workman was declared to have lost his lien on appointment in terms of Standing Order No. 15 (X) of the Certified Standing Order of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. vide, Office order No, 173/85 dated 11.7.1985, and copy of the aforesaid office order dated 11.7.1985, was also sent to the concerned workman on his address.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, unauthorized absence constituted the act of misconduct in terms of Standing Order No, 28 (v) of the Certified Standing Order read with Standing Order No. 15 (x) and for such misconduct the punishment of removal from services is warranted under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. However the Respondent No. 2 raised an Industrial Dispute and same was referred by the Government of Bihar for adjudication as stated in earlier paragraph.;