MUNICIPAL BOROUGH OF TALOD Vs. MANUBHAI KHODIDAS RAJGOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved of the judgement and award dated 28th February, 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH)No. 2 of 1996, Talod Nagar Panchayat (as it then was) has preferred the present petition.

(2.) INITIALLY, Notice was issued by this Court on 11th January, 2002. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and on 9th august, 2002, this Court (Coram:p. B. Majmudar, J.) passed the following order:

(3.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 was appointed by an order dated 1st October, 1980 on temporary basis as a peon. The respondent no. 1, without assigning any reason and without getting his leave sanctioned, remained absent from 31st October, 1981. The petitioner, therefore, issued two letters dated 3rd February, 1981 and 5th February, 1981 asking for explanation from respondent no. 1workman. The respondent no. 1 filed his reply on 24th February, 1981, which was accepted by the petitioner-Municipality, and as the respondent no. 1-workman had prayed for pardon and had given an undertaking not to repeat such conduct in future, the respondent no. 1workman was issued only warning and penalty of one day absence was imposed on him. The respondent no. 1-workman again remained absent on 18th September, 1981. Again, his explanation was sought for and he filed an undertaking to the effect that he will not repeat such conduct in future; he was fined Rs. 5/- and a warning was issued to him with one day absence. On 12th October, 1981, again he remained absent and the same story was again repeated, namely, he accepted the charge, prayed for mercy and pardon and filed an undertaking not to repeat such conduct. Thereafter, again on 18th december, 1981, he remained absent without leave and without any intimation and when his explanation was called for and he was called upon to report on duty, he neither tendered any explanation nor reported for duty. He remained absent for about two months between his appointment i. e. 23rd October, 1980 and termination of his services on 31st January, 1982. Before terminating his services, the petitioner-Municipality issued a show cause notice dated 8th January, 1982 calling upon respondent no. 1-workman as to why his services should not be terminated. A copy of the same is produced at annexure-E to the petition, which was also produced before the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Exh. 44. The respondent no. 1-workman approached the Labour Court with a case, as set out in paragraph-3 of the judgement and award, that by resolution No. 498:a of Talod Nagar Panchayat (as it then was) dated 30th September, 1980, he was appointed. The appointment was on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment i. e. 1st October, 1980. From 1st October, 1980 to 4th December, 1981, he regularly discharged his duties and on 4th December, 1981, on account of illness, he had gone to his native Village-Santalpur for taking treatment and, therefore, he could not discharge his duties with the petitioner; that on 21st June, 1982, when he recovered from his illness, he reported for duty at Talod by giving joining report; that the president of Talod Nagar Panchayat (as it then was) asked the respondent no. 1-workman to produce the certificate from the government Hospital; that on 21st June, 1982, he produced a certificate of the Government Doctor and filed a report to allow him to resume duty; and at that time, he was informed by the authorities that his services are brought to an end. The respondent no. 1-workman has challenged the action of the petitioner on the ground that he is not given any show cause notice; that the action of the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice; and, that he worked for one year and four months and completed his probation period and was discharging his duties on permanent basis. The respondent no. 1-workman prayed for the reinstatement and arrears of salary. He also filed application-Exh. 8 for condonation of delay. The said reference was contested by the petitioner by filing reply, being Exh. 18. The petitioner put forward its case and submitted that as the respondent no. 1-workman was in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent, after the decision was taken in the meeting dated 31st December, 1981, being Resolution No. 311, a final notice dated 8th January, 1982 was issued and his services were brought to an end with effect from 31st January, 1982. It was also stated by the petitioner before the learned Judge of the Labour court that respondent no. 1-workman has no interest in serving the petitioner as he is running a tea kettle, which is in the name of his father and placed on the panchayat's land, and is earning more than what he is to get by way of salary.