M.Y.Eqbal, J. - (1.) The petitioner M/s. Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has prayed for quashing the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1/94 whereby and whereunder the Labour Court held that termination of the services of the concerned employee was neither legal nor proper and, as such, held that the concerned employee, namely, Mr. M.K. Bandopadhaya, Medical Representative of the petitioner-Company is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages, consequential benefits and continuity in service.
(2.) The above reference was made to the Labour Court vide notification dated 1.12.1993 of Labour Employment & Training Department, Government of Bihar to give an adjudication to the following dispute : "Whether transfer of M.K. Bandopadhaya, Medical Representative., Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from Ranchi to some other places was made to harass Sri Bandopadhaya and whether to terminate him from services during pendency of Industrial Dispute Conciliation proceeding regarding transfer is proper and according to Law ? If not, what relief Shri Bandopadhaya is entitled to ?"
(3.) Petitioner's case is that M/s. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (in short I.D.P.L.) is a Public Sector Undertaking functioning under the authority and control of Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, Government of India. The concerned employee was appointed as a Medical Representative under Patna Region looking after sales of the Company. He was transferred from Patna to Ranchi in 1974 as Medical Representative and since then he was continuously working in Ranchi. Petitioner's case was that the Company has only one office in the State of Bihar looking after sales promotion at Patna which controls the entire zone including Ranchi. Petitioner's further case is that the concerned employee was transferred from Ranchi to Bhagalpur vide officer order dated 17.6.1989 and was relieved from Ranchi on the same day to enable him to join at Bhagalpur. Having learnt about the transfer the employee applied for commuted leave and proceeded on 22.6.89. His action for suddenly applying for commuted leave on medical ground immediately after the transfer order, aroused suspicion and so the Management constituted a Medical Board to verify the genuineness of the medical ground and by a telegram dated 4.7.1989 directed the | concerned employee to appeal before the Medical Board but he did not appear before the Medical Board and, as such, no leave was sanctioned and he was directed to join at Bhagalpur immediately On 7.7.1989 through Bihar State Sales Representative Union, the concerned employee raised an industrial dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi against the order of transfer made by the Management under which he was transferred from Ranchi to Bhagalpur. The Conciliation Officer initiated conciliation proceeding with respect to transfer of the concerned employee and notices were issued. The Management, after notice, appeared and participated in the proceeding on various dates and took the stand that the transfer order was made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Service Rules and it was simply an administrative order, not punitive in nature. Instead of joining at Bhagalpur, the concerned employee, vide letter dated 8.7.1989 informed the petitioner-Company that he will continue to work at Ranchi and thereby he had refused to abide by the transfer order. Petitioner's further case is that during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding the concerned employee, on his own, went on strike from 16.8.1989. The petitioner-Company despite the attitude of the employee, took a lenient view and gave one opportunity to the employee to comply with the (sic) transfer order. When the concerned employee failed to comply with the employee to submit his explanation and to face the enquiry. The concerned employee, although received the charge-sheet, but did not choose to appear and file show cause. In the meantime, the Vigilance Department of the Management completed the enquiry and prepared a memorandum of fresh charge on other misconduct which was issued on 29.9.1989. The concerned employee, by letter dated 9.10.1989, informed the petitioner-Company that he was on strike and not on duty and, therefore, he can neither attend the enquiry nor make official correspondence. Since the concerned employee refused to participate in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. On the basis of the enquiry report the concerned employee was found guilty of the charges contained in the charge-sheet and he was terminated from service which was communicated to him vide letter dated 8.11.1989.;