RAMACHANDRAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Standing Order 19(4) of the certified Standing Orders of the 2nd respondent, the Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Kalamassery, marked Ext. M-3 in Ext. P1 award in I. D. No. 220 of 1979 (old No. I. D. No. 19 of 1978) on the file of the 1st respondent, the Labour Court, Ernakulam, provides as follows:

(2.) The facts are brief; and those touching the questions of law raised in the writ petition are concerned, are not in dispute. The petitioner, a carpenter employed in the 2nd respondent company, was granted leave till 15-12-1976. He reported for duty on 27-12-76, but he was refused permission to enter the factory. Though thereupon he sent a leave application supported by a medical certificate for the period, 16-12-1976 to 23-12-1976, (25th and 26th being holidays) the 2nd respondent, instead of granting the leave applied for, issued notice terminating the services of the petitioner purporting to be in exercise of the power under standing Order 19(4). The conciliation efforts having failed, on receipt of the report with respect to that, the Government referred the matter to the 1st respondent for adjudication under S.10(1)(e) of the Act. Ext. P1 is a copy of the award in which the 1st respondent held that there was no termination of the service of the petitioner, but it was a case of automatic loss of lein by the workman's absence without leave. It is the correctness of this decision that is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 Standing Orders Act) was enacted with a view to require employers in industrial establishments to define conditions of employment under them and to make the said conditions known to the workmen employed by them. S.3 of the said Act provides for the submission of draft standing orders; S.4 provides that the standing orders would be certified; (a) if provision was made therein for every matter set out in the Schedule which was applicable to the industrial establishment; and (b) the standing orders were otherwise in conformity with the provisions of the Act. S.13(2) of that Act provides: