UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER DISTRICT DEHRADUN Vs. DHANI RAM S/O SRI HULAS RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 25.10.2008, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 177 of 2007, under Section 4(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the instant writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the respondent Dhani Ram was appointed with Transport Corporation (in short 'Corporation') as back as on 1-9-1988 on temporary basis by virtue of order No. B.R./I-88-10065-A dated 31.8.1988. He continued to work in the said capacity till 10-10-1988. From service records of the respondent it is apparent that during his service on 24.12.2008, now and then was availing leaves and had voluntarily absented often. On an earlier occasion also the respondent had absented without intimation w.e.f. 1.3.1995 to 7.3.1995 and in pursuance to the order passed by Regional Manager, Pilibhit vide its order dated 25.3.1995 curtailed the traveling allowance of the respondent. The entire service records of the respondent reveals that his tenure of service has passed away on the basis of several leaves which he had taken without due intimation. Ultimately the corporation after due opportunity of hearing and after affording adequate opportunity to lead evidence proceeded to pass an order No. 73 dated 16.2.2006 whereby the services of the respondent were dispensed with. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2006 the respondent moved application for making reference to the State Government, who passed the Government Order No. 3064- 68/Dehradun-C.P. 15/6 dated 7.5.2007 whereby the dispute which was sought to be referred was as to whether the dismissal of the services of respondent w.e.f. 16.2.2006 were just and valid?, if not, what relief he is entitled to receive from the Labour Court.

(2.) ON issuance of notices the petitioner filed its written statement contending therein that after being regularly appointed w.e.f. 1.9.1989, in June, 1999, the respondent was transferred to Rishikesh and thereafter on 18.11.2003. Since it was an absence without prior intimation and not against the sanctioned leave the respondent was issued with a charge sheet for his absence from duty w.e.f. 10-5-2003 to 15-5-2003 and 16-5-2003 to 12-8-2003. In reply of charge sheet the workman filed written statement and contended that he had gone to his home at Bareilly and he could not join his duties, as he was ailing. In support of his contention the respondent had submitted medical certificates issued by Government Hospital. In the written statement the workman further stated that the explanation given by him was satisfactory and the order of dispensing his services is too harsh, even if it is presumed that he has absented from duty the aforesaid period could be treated as to be a leave without pay. The petitioner Corporation also filed another written statement before the Labour Court alleging therein that the workman always absented from duty without intimation and, thus, the charge sheet dated 18.11.2003 was just and valid and since due and adequate opportunity of hearing in inquiry proceeding was provided to him, hence no interference was called for by the Labour Court. It was further pleaded that non-compliance of Rule 12(8) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 the written statement filed by the workman could not be accepted on record and deserves rejection. The petitioner Corporation also filed detailed written statement before the Labour Court which is Annexure No.4 to the writ petition.

(3.) THE respondent/workman filed counter affidavit in the writ petition and denied the contents of writ petition. With regard to contents of para No.4 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that for the absence of the period 1.3.1995 to 7.3.1995 was neither pleaded before the Labour Court nor the same was part of the charge sheet hence such allegation has no substance. The respondent further alleged that neither in enquiry report nor before the Labour Court even a single instance except that of his being absent from duty for the period 16.5.2003 till 12.8.2003 was referred. The absence from duty without sanction of leave for the period 16.5.2003 to 12.8.2003 was admitted by the respondent and the explanation was given by him that he was already on leave since 10-5-2003 to 15.5.2003 as he got information about the illness of his wife and hence he went to his native place. Thereafter since his wife was not getting well and her 4 health was deteriorating hence he remained attending her, meanwhile he also felt ill due to exertions and hence he himself recovered and after recovery of his wife he joined his services on 13.8.2003 and produced medical certificates pertaining to illness of his wife as well as himself. He also alleged that since he is resident of a village he could not give information in time but when he called his office about after a week, he informed one Sri Nepal Singh Rathi, who told him that since Senior Centre Incharge is not present he will be informed about the difficulty of respondent as and when he will be back. The grounds taken in writ petition are totally wrong, misleading, false, frivolous, misconceived and hence are denied. I have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondent.