RAMBUVAL THAKOREPRASAD Vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24-3-1970 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra in Appeal (IC) No.82 of 1969 under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.).

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts leading to this petition are as follows :---

(3.) IT is, therefore, clear from the provisions of Standing Order in question that if an employee after proceeding on leave desires extention of leave he has to make an application for such extension before the expiry of the leave originally granted to him. On such application being made the employer has to communicate to the employee whether the extension of the leave applied for is granted or not. The obligation to communicate to the employee is conditional in that the employer is required to send his communication only if it is likely to reach the employee before the expiry of the leave originally granted to him. IT is also clear that if for any reason the employee is unable to resume duty immediately on the expiry of the leave, then he may return within eight days of the expiry of the original leave and give an explanation to the satisfaction of the authority of his inability to return before the expiry of the original leave. If, however, he fails to do either of these two things, viz. to return to the duty immediately after the expiry of the leave originally granted or to return within eight days of the expiry of the leave and give satisfactory explanation he shall lose his lien on his appointment.