CHERIPALLI MADAR Vs. ASSISTANT DIVISION ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was serving as Assistant Wireman with the respondent Board. He left his services on 10.04.1980. On 3.01.1982 the Board issued notices to the respondent asking him to resume his duties. Since he did not resume his duty on 15.01.1982 the notice was sent asking him to appear in the enquiry which was being conducted against him on the ground of misconduct and abandonment of service. There is no dispute that these two notices issued by the Board were served on the appellant. The defence of the appellant is that at that point of time he was insane hence was not in a position to defend the enquiry. The Board having not received response from the appellant workman held domestic enquiry ex parte in which it came to the conclusion that the appellant had abandoned his services and hence removed him from their services. After six years, that is, in the year 1993 the appellant herein moved the application u/s. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court which set aside the termination order of the appellant dated 20.09.1982. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that such an application was maintainable but it held that the service of notice was admitted and there being no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting of domestic enquiry interfered with (sic restored) the order of termination.

(2.) The appellant very seriously contended that because of the fact that for nearly 4 years the appellant was insane he could not defend himself in the domestic enquiry, therefore, he had suffered the order of termination. If opportunity is given to him now he will be able to establish his abandonment in service. He also submits that since the High Court has not gone into the merits of the case we should give him an opportunity of being heard by the High Court by remanding the matter back to the High Court. We do not find any merit in this argument. The Tribunal itself after going through the merits of the case and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the finding of the domestic enquiry does not suffer from any error and the respondent management has followed the principles of natural justice, hence his termination was just. As against the said order the appellant did not prefer a writ petition in time. The petition was actually filed after a delay of 3 years, naturally the High Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter because of the laches. Even on merits from the material the main award of the Tribunal we are satisfied that no injustice has been done. In the said view of the matter this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.