MAHABIR PRASAD PATHAK Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 31st July, 1985 passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed on 3 -10 -1967 as a fitter in the respondent -Company, G.E.C. India Limited. Thereafter on 17 -10 -1968 the service of the petitioner was confirmed as fitter and on 3 -9 -1970 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Inspector. While working as Junior Inspector, the petitioner absented himself from 1 -10 -1982 to 26 -11 -1983. According to the petitioner he had absented himself from duty because of illness but his absence for more than a year was admittedly without any leave application. Thus on 26 -11 -1983, the service of the petitioner was terminated and in compliance with the provisions of Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the employer gave him one month's salary in lieu of notice. The said payment was made by the respondent No. 2 by cheque which was accepted by the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER exchange of pleadings and appraisal of evidence, the Labour Court gave a finding that the petitioner absented himself from duty w.e.f. 1 -10 -1982 to 26 -11 -1983 without any sanctioned leave. It was submitted by the petitioner that during this period he was unwell and hence could not attend his duties. When the workman petitioner submitted medical leave application, the employer directed him to present himself for examination before the company's Medical Officer but the petitioner did not respond nor did he present himself for examination. Further it is not disputed by the petitioner that he was serving as field officer with the Peerless Insurance Company since 1978. This fact came to light during the proceedings before the Labour Court. It was also not disputed by the petitioner that during the period 1982 -83 i.e. when he was absent from duties, he earned a commission of about rupees forty to forty -five thousand from Peerless Insurance Company. It is also admitted by the petitioner that even after the termination of service in the year 1983, he continued to work as field officer of the Peerless Insurance Company and was earning his commission there. At the time when the service of the petitioner was terminated in the year 1983 he was getting the salary of Rs. 700/ -to 800/ -. Admittedly, the commission income which he was getting during the period of absence in the year 1982 -83 was much more than his salary. On the excuse of medical leave the petitioner absented himself from work at the office of the respondent company but continued to work with Peerless Company and earned higher commission.