SHRIPAT VISHRAM ANGRE Vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-worker seeks to challenge order of the Labour Court dated August 30, 1988 and order of the Industrial Court dated January 4, 1990 in Application (BIR) No. 612 of 1984 and Appeal (IC) No. 308 of 1988 respectively.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:-

(3.) THE short point which requires consideration in the present case is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that there was abandonment of service as contended by the Mills because the workman did not report for work upto December 31, 1983 i. e. , for a period of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the Industrial court, however, lost sight of one of the most important facts viz. , that as found by the Labour court, on June 5, 1982 company had issued a charge-sheet. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge-sheet was not received. The workman was charged for misconduct which inter alia, included absence without leave and permission. However, as the Labour Court found that no steps were taken pursuant to the said charge-sheet, the issue remains as to, whether in the above circumstances, the Industrial Court was right in inferring the abandonment of service. The answer is in the negative for the reason that when the above charge-sheet was issued on June 5, 1982and the charge-sheet was not received by the employee, the employer who had purported to charge the petitioner for misconduct expressly wanted to take action on the ground that the workman had abandoned service. The workman was undoubtedly guilty of negligence in not reporting for duty but the question still remains whether the abandonment of service in the above circumstances should be inferred. The Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Mills has not proved such abandonment of service, particularly when the charge-sheet was issued on that ground against the workman. In the circumstances, the Industrial Court erred in not considering the effect of the issuance of the charge-sheet in the context of abandonment of service. This material fact which has been apprehended by the Labour Court has not been gone into by the Industrial Court. To prove abandonment of service, in the present case, the employee was sought to be charged for the misconduct. The charge-sheet was not received as held by the labour Court. In the circumstances, at the highest only negligence could be inferred for not reporting for work upto December 31, 1983, but it could not be said that the workman was guilty of abandonment of service. No inquiry was held pursuant to the said charges.