SAHKARIGANNA VIKAS SAMITI Vs. MADAN MOHAN TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent was employed as a seasonal clerk with the appellant. On the ground that the respondent had absented himself continuously, his services were terminated under Rg. 32 of the U.P. Cane Cooperative Services Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). The respondent challenged the termination and in his claim before the Labour Court it was stated in para 8 that he had never applied for leave. Therefore unauthorised leave could not be treated the basis for terminating his services under Rg. 32. The Labour Court, however, found that the action under Rg. 32 was justified.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred a writ petition from the rejection of his claim by the Labour Court. The writ petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 9.10.2003. The High Court held that Rg. 32 of the Regulations had been wrongfully invoked by the appellant and applied by the Labour Court and that the applicable regulation was Rg. 28 which had not been complied with. The decision of the High Court has been challenged by the appellant.