GIRISHBHAI VALJIBHAI CHUDGAR Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms.Vasavadatta Bhatt appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, learned advocate for respondent Board.

(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference No.9/1995, wherein the Reference has been rejected by the Labour Court by order dated 23/07/2001. The petitioner workman was working as Line man on probation with effect from 13-9-1993 and his probation period was over on 13-3-1994. Thereafter, he was not taken on duty on the ground of remaining absent and therefore, the respondent Board has passed termination order dated 16-11-1994 stating that the petitioner remained absent with effect from 4/06/1994 till the date of termination and inspite of various notices served on the petitioner, the respondent did not give any answer and thus, the petitioner workman was dismissed from service with effect from 4/06/1994 while exercising the powers under Service Rules 113 and 236 of the respondent Board. Learned advocate Mrs.Vasavadatta Bhatt has submitted that the petitioner workman had remained absent and on the basis of the misconduct of remaining absent, service of the petitioner has been terminated by the respondent Board under Service Rule 113 and 236 of the Service Rules without holding any departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, the order of termination is illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice. She has further submitted that under Service Rule 113 which gives powers to the respondent Board to terminate the services of any permanent employee from service but that service rule itself violates principles of natural justice while not holding the departmental inquiry at the time of dismissing the services of the workman concerned on the basis of the misconduct without proving the same against the workman and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the respondent board against the workman which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the labour court has committed gross error in rejecting the Reference of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.S.P.Hasurkar on behalf of the respondent Board has submitted that the respondent Board has powers under Service Regulation 113 and if any employee remains continuously absent on his duty or overstay inspite of warning to return on duty, in such eventuality, the respondent Board can summarily discharge such employee from service of the respondent without necessity of proceedings under the Gujarat Electricity Board [Conduct and Discipline] Proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioner workman who remained absent for the period from 4/06/1994 continuously without any prior permission of the authority and though notices were served on the petitioner, no reply has been given by the petitioner and not reported for duty and therefore, ultimately the respondent Board has exercised the powers under Service Rule 113 and dismissed the petitioner workman from service with effect from 4/06/1994 which is legal and valid order and the labour court has rightly rejected the Reference.