- (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 26-9-2000 pronounced on 10-7-2001 passed by respondent No. 1 in Reference Case No. 6 of 1994 directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2 with full back wages. The following dispute was referred by notification dated 24-1-1994. Whether the termination of services of Shri Hawaldar Sharma, Rigger, Staff No. 293910 Sintring Plant (O), Bokaro Steel Plant, bokaro Steel City is proper? If not, whether he should be reinstated on the job or/and compensation be paid?"
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the letter of appointment, there was clear stipulation that respondent No. 2 will be governed by the standing orders. The workman absented from 20-1-1986 without any information to the management. Accordingly the management had to issue a registered letter/notice dated 5-2-1986 asking respondent No. 2 to report by 20-2-1986. But neither he reported on duty nor sent any reply. Accordingly by office order dated 24-3-1986 he was informed that as per the provisions of Clause 20 (xi) of the standing Order his name has been struck off from the rolls of the company. Thereafter respondent No. 2 submitted an application dated 14-4-1986 enclosing purported medical certificate issued by Mansik arogyashala, Ranchi dated 13-4-1986. He also filed an application before the Grievance Committee. On 23-4-1986 he filed application for re-employment. After all this he again vanished, and lost chance of consideration of his grievance. He further submitted that respondent No. 2 did not deny such statements made in the written statement of the petitioner. He further submitted that it is not a case of retrenchment. A notice was sent to respondent No. 2 to join his duty but he failed to comply with such notice and therefore, he lost his lien on the service, In such circumstances it was not necessary to hold a departmental enquiry or to follow the principles of natural justice. He relied on the judgments Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, 2000 (85) FLR 807 (SC) and Heavy Engineering Corporation v. Jetha oraon, 2004 (4) JCR 622 (Jhar ). He lastly submitted that respondent No. 2 was never serious about his service. His name was struck off from the rolls in March, 1986. The Reference was made in 1994. In between he did not pursue the matter diligently and therefore, the claim was also stale.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 became mentally disturbed and therefore, he was unable to attend his duty from 20-1-1986. He sent application for leave to his controlling officer through his neighbour and co-worker Shri N. C. Das but he did not receive any reply to the same. After some time he felt better and wanted to resume duty but to ensure that he was not suffering from any serious mental problem he was taken up by his friends and relatives to mansik Arogyashala, Ranchi, where he was examined on 13-4-1986 and some medicines were prescribed and it was certified that he is fit to resume his duty. Thereafter on 17-4-1986 he was examined and declared fit for duty by the Medical Officer of bokaro Steel Plant Hospital of the company and accordingly he reported for duty on 18-4-1986 but he was not allowed to join. He further submitted that the dispute was not stale as respondent No. 2 was pursuing the matter and he was not responsible for delay. He further submitted that the ground of delay was not pressed by the management before the Labour Court. He further submitted that notice dated 5-2-1986 was not received by respondent No. 2.;