TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LTD Vs. THEIR WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY TATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited has obtained a rule against their workmen represented by Tata Collieries Workers' Union, Digwadih (respondent No. 1), the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhanbad (respondent No. 2) and the Union of India (respondent No. 3) to show cause why the award of the second respondent dated the 27th of December, 1968 a copy of which is Annexure '7' be not called upon and quashed by grant of a writ of certiorari. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(2.) Shri H.C. Chakravarty, the workman concerned in this case, was working as a clerk in the central bonus and provident fund Sec. of the Digwadih colliery. On 12th August, 1965 the workman applied for one day's leave for some urgent need of work. One day's leave was granted. A copy of the application is Annexure T. On 13th August, 1965 he filed another application to extend his leave by two days more. That application is Annexure '1/a'. On 16th August, 1965 he filed a third application asking for further extension of leave up to 21st August, 1965. A copy of this application is Annexure '1/b'. On 16th August, 1965 the Senior Office Superintendent by a letter intimated to the workman that his request for extension of leave was refused and he was being marked absent. He was, therefore, advised and asked to resume his duty forthwith, in any event not later than 21st August, 1965 (wrongly mentioned as 21 -8 -68 in the application). The said letter was sent to the quarters of the workman but could not be delivered to him because he was not found there and the case of the petitioner -company is that other members of the family refused to receive the letter. On 17th August, 1965 the said letter was sent to the home address of the workman concerned but it was returned undelivered with the endorsement "Delivery Refused". On 26th/28th August, 1965 another letter was sent to the workman concerned saying that since he had overstayed his leave he lost his lien on appointment and he has been placed in the badli list. The said letter also came back undelivered. On 9th October, 1965 and 16th October, 1965 a notice was published in the two daily papers 'Jugantar' and 'Khan Mazdoor' to the effect that on account of overstay the said workman had lost lien on his appointment. On 22nd November, 1965 the workman reported for duty and produced a medical certificate showing him ill from 16th August, 1965 to 20th November, 1965. The management, in view of the loss of lien of the workman in accordance with Clause 9 of the certified standing orders of the colliery, did not allow him to resume his duty. The respondent -union thereupon raised an industrial dispute which was eventually referred on 12th May, 1966 for adjudication to respondent No. 2 under Sec. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question referred for adjudication, as would appear from the impugned award, is

(3.) The case of the workman before the Tribunal was that he applied for extensions of leave on 13th August, 1965 and 16th August, 1965. The later application asked for extension of leave up to 21st August, 1965. He reported for duty on 22nd November, 1965 but the employer did not permit him to join duty. It may be pointedly mentioned here that it was not the workman's case anywhere at any time that even after 21st August, 1965 he had filed any other application asking for extension of leave any further. His case was that due to illness he was unable to return to Digwadih and join his duty on the expiry of the extended leave prayed for by him in his application dated 16th August, 1965. His further case was that the stoppage of work was illegal, arbitrary and by way of victimization for his trade union activities. The employer's case in short was that the workman had lost his lien when he did not report for duty in accordance with Clause 9 of the certified standing orders. The extension of leave asked for by the applications dated 13th August, 1965 and 16th August, 1965 was not granted and thereafter the company had taken sufficient steps to notify the termination of the petitioner's lien on his appointment. The employers further pleaded that they were not aware if the affected workman was a member of the Tata Workers' Union.