EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Vs. INDRAJIT G KEDARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and award dated 24th June, 2002 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference No. 23 of 2006, by which, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said Reference filed by the respondent employee and has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent -employee without backwages from the date of termination till award. However to consider the earlier four years service in his service career.

(2.) FACTS leading to the present petition, in nutshell, are as under:

(3.) MR . Manish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent afresh in service on the ground that before relieving the respondent, departmental inquiry was not initiated. It is submitted that despite number of notices/communications, the respondent did not resume the duty and remain absent unauthorizedly for longer period and despite the last communication to the respondent that if he fails to resume his duty, he will loose his lien on his appointment in the Corporation and thereafter the name of the respondent was struck off from the rolls of the Corporation. Considering Clause -14 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, the Tribunal has materially erred in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent afresh in -service solely on the ground that before relieving the respondent, departmental inquiry was not held. It is submitted that considering Clause -14 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, in the case where an employee overstays beyond the period of leave originally granted and subsequently extended, he shall loose his lien on his appointment automatically and in such a circumstances, departmental inquiry is not required to be held and initiated. It is further submitted that considering Clause -14 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation in the aforesaid situation, the respondent has lost the lien on his appointment and, therefore, his name was required to be struck -off from the rolls of the Corporation as he ceased to be an employee of the Corporation and, therefore, name of the respondent was rightly struck -off from the rolls of the Corporation w. e. f. 13/04/1985. Therefore, it is submitted that action of the petitioner -Corporation in relieving the respondent on the ground that his name has been struck -off from the rolls of the Corporation as he lost his lien on his appointment in the Corporation as despite the number of notices, he does not resumed his duty and he overstayed beyond the period of leave originally granted and subsequently extended and the same was absolutely as per Clause -14 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -corporation employer that even otherwise the learned Tribunal has materially erred in passing the impugned judgement and award to reinstate the respondent afresh in service in Reference, where the dispute was raised after a period of 8 years.