UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. G.P.MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition preferred by the management assails the award dated 09.05.2000 passed by the Labour Court-III, Tis Hazari, Delhi in L. C. A. No.110/93. Under the impugned award, the petitioner has been directed to release the respondent's salary for the period between 29.07.1987 to 28.06.1988 as also between 07.07.1989 to 29.01.1992, after deducting 41 days' salary which was paid to him during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court.

(2.) The brief facts as emerging from the record are that the respondent no.2 was employed with the petitioner as a Junior Library Attendant w.e.f. 23.09.1978. It appears that the respondent no.2, claiming to be unwell, remained absent from duty for the period between 17.01.1987 to 26.09.1987, without seeking any prior leave from the petitioner. Consequently, when he reported back to the petitioner on 27.09.1987, he was not permitted to rejoin duty till 29.06.1988 on the ground that appropriate orders were awaited from the competent authority. The respondent no.2 once again went on unauthorized leave from 06.07.1988 till 06.07.1989, claiming that he was unwell. When he subsequently reported back for duty on 07.07.1989, he was yet again not permitted to rejoin duty on the same ground till 29.01.1992 and his wages for these periods of absence in 1987 and 1992 were withheld by the petitioner.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.2 raised an industrial dispute seeking payment of his salary for the periods between 29.07.1987 to 28.06.1988 and 07.07.1989 to 29.01.1992. The basic premise of respondent no.2's claim was that since it was the petitioner itself, which had prevented him from discharging his duties, he could not be denied his wages for the said period. On the other hand, the petitioner opposed the claim by contending that the respondent no.2 was guilty of repeatedly taking unauthorized leave from duty and, therefore, the petitioner was justified in not permitting him to rejoin duty without seeking appropriate orders in this regard from the competent authority. It was therefore urged that the petitioner could not be faulted for withholding respondent no. 2's salary for the periods when he did not discharge his duty.