AFSAR MIAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition at the instance of a workman is directed against the Award dated 30th October, 1979 delivered by Labour Court, Bareilly in Adjudication Case No. 2 of 1979 between the petitioner on one hand and M/s. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Fatehganj West, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the Employer of the Workman) on the other.

(2.) THE dispute referred to by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication to the Labour Court, in substance, was whether the Employer was justified in terminating the petitioner's services with effect from 23rd September, 1977 on account of his absence from duty within eight days of extended period of leave.

(3.) THE facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner was employed in the respondent's company initially on temporary basis in the year 1963 and thereafter, he was appointed on probation as a Fitter 'c' by means of an order dated 26. 7. 1966 of the Factory Manager. He was confirmed and conferred the designation and given work of Machinist 'c' in the Engineering Department of the Factory. It appears that on July 4, 1971, the petitioner was taken into custody by Punjab Police and subsequent to his arrest, a request was made on his behalf by his mother for grant of leave to the petitioner-workman. The leave applied for was granted from 5th July, 1971 to 5th August, 1971 and a communication was sent in this regard to the mother of the petitioner by means of a letter dated 20th July, 1971, copy of which has been annexed to the counter- affidavit as 'annexure - C. A. 2'. In the said letter, it was mentioned that the leave applied for on behalf of the petitioner had been sanctioned as a special case and that he (the petitioner) may make it a point to report for duty on 6th August, 1971. It was also specified in the aforesaid letter that the company could not afford to keep the post vacant for indefinitely long period and also that no further request for extension beyond the period of leave granted to him, would be entertained. It was also made clear in the letter that in case the petitioner failed to report for duty on by 6th August, 1971, the company could have no other alternative except to proceed to take appropriate action against him in the light of the certified Factory Standing Orders as applicable to him, without any further reference communication being made to the petitioner or to his mother. As is indicated from the facts on record, the petitioner continued to languish in detention and as such, he was disabled from reporting for duty by 6th August, 1971 and by communication contained in letter dated 18th August, 1971, a copy which has been annexed to counter-affidavit as Annexure-CA-1, the petitioner was informed that since he had failed to report for duty after expiry of eight days of the leave had been granted to him, his name stood deleted from the roll of the Company in accordance with Clause 16. 7 of the Standing Orders with immediate effect. In the letter dated 18th August, 1971, a reference has been made to another letter dated 9th August, 1971, allegedly written to the petitioner's mother on behalf of the Company thereby calling upon the petitioner to report for duty on or before 14th August, 1971, and in the event for his failure, it was specified therein, his name would be removed from the Rolls of the Company without any further reference in this regard. It appears that the letter dated 9th August, 1971, had been written by the Company in response to an application dated 5. 8. 1971 submitted to the Management by the petitioner's mother on his behalf for further extension of leave by one month, but the leave was extended upon 13th August only.