MAHATTA & CO Vs. MUNNA LAL SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition impugns the award dated 21 st April, 2005 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-

(2.) Notice of the petition was issued and vide ex parte order dated 15 th May, 2006 which was made absolute on 28 th September, 2010, the operation of the award stayed. The respondent workman filed a counter affidavit and an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; however on 7 th January, 2009 the said application was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. Rule in the petition was issued on 7 th January, 2009. Another application under Section 17B of the Act was filed which was allowed vide order dated 4 th February, 2010. However none has been appearing thereafter for the respondent workman since 7 th July, 2010.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner employer was heard on 22 nd February, 2011 and 24 th February, 2011 and the record of the Industrial Adjudicator perused. It was the case of the respondent workman in his statement of claim dated 10 th October, 2000 before the Industrial Adjudicator that he had been in employment of the petitioner employer as a Printer since 1 st November, 1971 and his last drawn wages were of Rs. 3,150/- per month; that he went on sanctioned leave from 25 th May, 1998 to 13 th June, 1998 but could not join duty till 31 st August, 1998 owing to illness and intimation whereof was sent to the petitioner employer by post; that however when he reported for duty on 1 st September, 1998, he was not taken back; that during the conciliation proceedings however the petitioner employer produced a letter which showed the services to have been suspended w.e.f. 2 nd September, 1998 and undercover of letter dated 18 th December, 1998 he was served with a charge sheet dated 2 nd September, 1998; that he replied to the charge sheet on 6 th January, 1999; that the petitioner employer appointed Shri D.C. Gandhi as Inquiry Officer but who was not independent and partial; that no opportunity was given to him to participate and he was also not paid any suspension allowance; that on 30 th July, 1999 the respondent workman had been served with a show cause notice along with the report of the Inquiry Officer; that though the respondent workman replied to the show cause notice but he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 6 th September, 1999; that he was out of employment since then.