ST PETERS COLLEGE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-employers by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the award dated 27th August, 1996, published on 27th November, 1996, passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Agra in Adjudication Case No. 26 of 1988, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

(2.) The following dispute was referred to the labour court for adjudication : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..

(3.) The labour court issued notices to the parties, namely, the workman concerned as well as the employers, who have put in appearance and filed their written statement and adduced the evidence. In short, the workman has set up the case that he was employed with the employers for past ten years as Class IV employee. Apart from other Class IV employees, two gardeners were also employed by the employers and each gardener was allowed to avail 20 days leave during summer vacation of the college without inviting any application. It is further stated that Principal of the College was away from Agra and came back on 25/26th June, 1983. The workman concerned had applied for 20 days leave with effect from 10th June, 1983 to 30th June, 1983 to the Vice-Principal, which has been accepted by him and on his oral consent the workman proceeded on leave on 10th June, 1983. It is after some time when the workman concerned came to know that he is being shown absent in the attendance register, therefore, he made an application on 18th May, 1983 to the Vice-Principal, but on his refusal the same has been sent by Registered post. He further stated that since no reply to this letter was given to the workman concerned, therefore, he remained on leave upto 30th June. 1983 on the basis of prior permission granted by the Vice-Principal. When the workman concerned reported for duty on 30th June, 1983 with an application, the Principal of the College concerned refused to accept the same and he was told that a letter is being written to him he should come with the answer of the aforesaid letter. The workman was continuously reporting for duty till 4th July, 1983, but he was not allowed to work, nor any letter was given to him. Ultimately on 4th July, 1983, the workman again approached the Principal with an application, but he was not allowed to join the duties and in between he received a letter from the College, whereby he was informed that since the workman concerned himself remained absent unauthorisedly himself with effect from afternoon of 9th June, 1993, therefore, his services have been terminated and he was paid amount of retrenchment of one month's salary through cheque. The workman concerned has protested the same, but to no consequence. Ultimately a dispute was raised. From the above, it is clear that the services of the workman concerned has been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act').