AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH Vs. MEGHRAJBHAI MOHANBHAI SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Bank by filing the present petition, has challenged order dated 18th May, 2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in Appeal (IC) No.08 of 2011, dismissing the Appeal.

(2.) IT was a common order passed in the Appeal of the petitioner Bank, as well as in the Appeal of the workman being Appeal (IC) No.01 of 2012, which both arose from order dated 19th May, 2011 passed by Labour Court in B.I.R. Application No.02 of 2000 of the workman.

(3.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.P.Y. Divyeshvar for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Nasreen Shaikh for the respondent. Assailing the order of the Industrial Tribunal, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent did not join the Dungar Branch and remained absent for the long time, for which conduct he was given notices twice and was asked to explain and also called upon personally and intimated to join duties. It was submitted that despite opportunities, the workman did not reply or did not presented himself and hence the termination was justified. It was submitted that on account of workman's conduct, it was concluded by the Bank that he was not interested in service. He submitted therefore that the workman was called upon to explain as per notice Exhibit 80 which according to learned advocate, was a chargesheet issued and the workman was intimated regarding proposed action. He than submitted that despite subsequent notices, he did not come and ultimately the Executive Committee passed the Resolution. 4.1 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent supported the impugned order.