VANDANA JHINGAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge rejecting her writ petition. In the petition she had questioned a letter/communication of 10.10.1995 written by her employer, i.e., M/s. Goa Shipyard Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the "employer") informing that she had lost her lien due to voluntary abandonment of the services. The appellant was working as Senior Marketing Assistant Gr. I at the Delhi office of her employer. She claims that she sought and was granted the NOC to seek visa for visiting United States ("US") in December, 1994. On 6.12.1994, she was transferred to the Goa office of her employer and asked to report for duty in the first week of January, 1995. She sought leave complaining that she had sprained her right ankle for which medical leave was sanctioned w.e.f. 17.4.1995 to 1.5.1995. Immediately upon the expiry of the medical leave, she availed of the leave which she claimed was granted to her in December, duly sanctioned by the General -Manager. Reliance is placed upon a letter of 6.2.1995 which recorded that the applicant has deferred her visit to the United States. In view of the deferment of visit, there was no objection to visit the US from the revised date. The appellant thereafter relies upon a letter of 4.4.1995 (which has been disputed by her employer in the writ proceedings) allowing her to proceed on leave from 1.5.1995 to 8.6.1995.

(2.) According to the appellant's averments in the petition - -as well as during the contentions urged before this Court - -the facts which emerge are as follows: The appellant was to report for duties on 12.6.1995 when her extended leave expired. She did not do so. Much later on 20.7.1995, she sent a fax without indicating her address, seeking extension of leave and without furnishing any reason. The extension sought was till 15.9.1995. In the meanwhile, her employer claimed that despite their efforts she could not be served with the notice to show cause why she should not be deemed to have lost her lien in view of her persistent refusal to report for duties. In these circumstances, newspaper publication was resorted to; a notice was published on 9.9.1995. In terms of the notice, upon failure of the appellant/employee to report for duties within one month, she would be deemed to have lost her lien. In these circumstances, for the first time on 13.10.1995, the appellant represented against newspaper notice claiming to have been shocked and contending that her loss of lien and punishment of her employment was arbitrary and illegal. Upon her employer not heeding her representations, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire records, pleadings and the submissions of the parties was of the opinion that interference was not warranted.

(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that finding of the learned Single Judge was erroneous. Counsel submitted that the sanction of leave to enable the appellant to visit US was permitted and consequently the letter/certificate issued on 4.4.1995 was perfectly authorized. It is submitted that findings of the Single Judge that the individual who granted it was not authorized to do so and had been subsequently dismissed, are not correct. It was argued that the recourse to Regulation 29(1) governing her employment cannot be attracted. Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as D.K. Yadav v/s. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., : 1993 (SLT Soft) 354 : 1993 (3) SCC 259 and the subsequent judgment in Vijay S. Sathaye v/s. Indian Airlines Limited and Others, : V (2014) SLT 375 : (2013) 10 SCC 253. It is submitted that the subsequent judgment was inapplicable and that the Single Judge fell into error in holding that it was relevant. Counsel highlighted in this context that without holding an inquiry, the employer could not have dispensed with her services. He also referred to Uptron India Ltd. v/s. Shammi Bhan, : IV (1998) SLT 152 : AIR 1998 SC 1681. It was lastly urged that the learned Single Judge erred in misconstruing the instructions of the Central Government dated 27.5.1992 which authorized the individual Mr. Gupta to issue a sanction letter dated 4.4.1995.