SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. LAXMAN DURGAJI BORKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 was in service of the petitioner. He was working as Oilman/labour on Jam Warora Road w.e.f. 1.11.1983 on daily wages. It is alleged by the petitioners that he had himself absented from the work w.e.f. 7.2.1986, without any intimation. He did not resume the duties despite letters dated 21.4.1986 and 6.5.1986. According to petitioners, the respondent No. 1 did not pay any heed to these letters, nor resumed his duties for a pretty long time. However, later on, he issued demand notice on 14.10.1988 alleging that he was illegally terminated from the services without any notice w.e.f. 10.4.1986 and he should be allowed to resume his duties. He again sent second demand notice on 6.10.1989 with a similar request. As his request was not accepted, respondent No. 1 approached to the Conciliation Officer by preferring an application dated 23.10.1989 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Another such application raising same contention dated 3.10.1989 was filed raising same dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court bearing Reference No. IDA 77 of 1991. Petitioners filed their written statements to which respondent No. 1 had also filed rejoinder. The evidence led by parties was recorded and by the impugned order respondent No. 1 was directed to be reinstated on the post held by him with back wages from 23.10.1989.This order is challenged in this petition.

(3.) Learned A.G.P. has submitted that the impugned order is incorrect inasmuch as there no case was made out by the respondent No. 1. He had himself remained absent from the duties without any intimation and therefore, he had abandoned his services. According to him the letters of warning and asking him to resume services were issued on 21.4.1986 and 6.5.1986, but he did not join. Therefore, it has to be presumed that he had abandoned the services with requisite intention. According to him, the respondent's notices of demand were just to make a show that he wanted to join, but petitioners did not allow him. He has contended that since respondent No. 1 abandoned the services there can not be any reinstatement, so also the back wages.