G KRISHNA SINGH Vs. MANAGEMENT HAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by a workman and directed against the award made by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in complaint No,.2 of 1968 arising in AID. No.11 of 1966.

(2.) It arises in this way. The petitioner was entertained as an apprentice by the respondent-management by virtue of an agreement entered into on 3-4-1961, copy of which has been produced and marked as Ex.P12. According to the said agreement, he had to undergo a preparatory training for about 6 months on a certain stipend and thereafter was required to serve the management for a period of 5 years subject to certain terms and conditions which are unnecessary to be set out. He completed the training and was absorbed as a Mechanic 'C' Grade. Thereafter he was promoted as Mechanic 'B. From the year 1963-64 upto 1966, he suffered from ill-health and used to absent himself sometimes with permission and sometimes without it. On 1-3-1966, he was served with a memo specifically on a charge that he was at sent for 77 days without permission during the period from 1-1-1965 to 31-12-1965. He was thereupon called upon to submit his explanation in writing to the Asst. Personnel Manager and to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted an explanation. His explanation was that he was undergoing medical treatment for stomach disorders and typhoid and he got the treatment from a private medical practitioner and at the ESI Hospital. He prayed to be excused and further assured that he would avoid recurrence of such misconduct relative to the unauthorised absence. On 6-6-1966, he was called upon to, face an enquiry before the Termination Enquiry Committee on 29-6-1966. It is alleged that on 28-6-1966, he sent a telegram to the Personnel Department of the Management pleading his inability to be present at the enquiry on 29-6-1966. It is alleged on behalf of the Management that the telegram had not been received by the Management. The result therefore was that the petitioner was not present on the date of the enquiry. The Enquiry Committee proceeded with the enquiry ex-parte and terminated the service of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner, thereupon, instituted a complaint before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, under S.33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging that his services had been wrongfully terminated in that the standing orders had no,t been complied with and that the enquiry held by the Management was opposed to the principles of natural justice. The Management resisted the complaint on various grounds. It is contended that the enquiry was held with due regard to the principles of natural justice and that even otherwise, the termination of his employment was in accordance with the terms of the contract entered into between the parties as also in due compliance with the standing orders governing the master. The Tribunal after enquiring into the matter, came to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable in law and therefore dismissed it. During the trial, as many as 9 issues were framed in the case and the Tribunal purported to record its findings with regard to all of them. But it is seen from the discussion in the order impugned that it had mainly concerned itself with 3 questions and recorded its findings thereon. It held that the termination of the service of the petitioner was in accordance with the contract earlier referred to and therefore it would not be open to the petitioner to rely on the standing orders. It further held that even if the standing orders were applicable to the case of the petitioner, his service must be deemed to, have been duly terminated in accordance with such standing orders in that he has absented himself for more than 10 days without permission, as stated by him. Lastly, it held that the contention urged that in view of the letter dt.l7-5-1966 issued by the Personnel Officer (Air Craft) the petitioner must be deemed to have been punished in regard to the misconduct alleged against him in the context of the termination of his services, was untenable in that the action taken in the said letter did not amount to a punishment for the offence with which he was charged. Notwithstanding the fact that the discussion had been confined more or less, only to the above matters, the Tribunal recorded its findings on all the nine issues in the case, many of which were dependent on facts. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has approached this Court.