SUBHASH KUMAR Vs. MANOJ REPAIRING & JOB WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns the order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court in LIR/D No. 270/2008, on the ground that no enquiry was conducted prior to the termination of the petitioner's services. He claims that he was employed with the management as a machine operator since 1986, and if it is not accepted from 1986, then, at least, from 23.04.2006. The records of the management were seen by the learned Labour Court and it reflected that he was employed as a helper and not as a machine operator. This evidence of the management was not disputed by the petitioner.

(2.) The management's version was believed by the learned Labour Court to the extent that the workman was a habitual absentee and from time to time, he would on his own, not report to work. His attendance record showed that from 24.04.2007 to 28.06.2007, he remained absent unauthorisedly and unlawfully and again from 20.08.2007, he remained absent despite the management calling upon him through correspondence to join duties. He failed to do so. A chargesheet was issued to him on 04.10.2007 asking him to give his written explanation. He did not give a reply. A domestic enquiry was initiated. Meanwhile, the workman approached the office of the Labour Officer. At the latter's intervention, the workman resumed duties on 31.10.2007, therefore, the enquiry proceedings were dropped, but yet again from 17.03.2008 he remained absent. Instead of joining duties, he started filing false and frivolous complaints against the management and failed to join duties despite the intervention of the Labour Officer.

(3.) The Labour Officer visited the management on 03.07.2008. The workman joined duties on that date, he went away from the place of employment at 1:30 p.m. His absenteeism was promptly informed to the Labour Officer on the same date.