SYMONDS AND CO PVT LIMITED Vs. MAHARANIDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Industrial Tribunal (1), U. P. at Allahabad dated April 28, 1975.

(2.) MAHARANIDIN was employed as fitter in M/s. Symonds and Company Private Limited, Allahabad. He made an application to the management for grant of one day's casual leave for 11th July, 1974. The leave was granted, He sent an application for extension of his casual leave for two days more, namely, for 12th and 13th July and that was also sanctioned by the management. Maharanidin, however, did not join or resume his duties on 14th July, 1974. Instead he continued to remain absent without any sanction of leave from 14th to 23rd July. 1974. On 23rd July, 1974, the General Manager of the company issued an order which was sent to Maharanidin at his village addressed by registered post. The order stated that since the workman remained absent beyond the period of leave originally granted and subsequently extended and as he had not returned within eight days of the expiry of his leave, he lost his lein in accordance with Clause 17 (h) (i) of the standing orders and his name was removed from the muster-roll with effect from 23rd July, 1974 and the workman was directed to collect his dues from the Accounts Department. Maharanidin, however, reported for joining his duties on 27th July, 1974, but he was not permitted to do so in view of the order of the General Manager. Maharanidin filed a complaint under Section 6f of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Industrial Tribunal (1) U. P. Allahabad raising a grievance that the employers have wrongfully terminated his services without obtaining approval of the Tribunal as a dispute relating to bonus between the workman and employers was pending. The Tribunal registered Maharanidin's complaint application as Adjudication Case No. 58 of 1974.

(3.) THE employers contested the proceedings before the Tribunal. On behalf of the employers it was pleaded that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application or to grant any relief to the workman as the services of Maharanidin stood automatically terminated in accordance with Clause 17 (h) (i) of the Standing Orders. The workman on the other hand asserted that the employers had in fact terminated his services by way of punishment without holding any domestic enquiry or obtaining explanation, hence the order of termination was unjustified and illegal. He further pleaded that in the absence of any approval as contemplated by Section 6e of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the order of termination was illegal. The workman asserted that he had sent a request for leave by means of a post card despatched on 15th July, 1947 to the employers, but he received no reply about the rejection or sanction of his leave. He pleaded that since he was continuously ill, he could not attend to his duties. On 27th July, 1947, he reported for joining his duties along with a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner but he was not allowed to join. On 4th August, 1974, he again made an effort to join his duties and submitted his explanation but the employers refused to accept his explanation.