KOYYA VENKATA RAO Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the Respondent Port Trust.

(2.) The facts necessary for decision in the above writ petition are that the petitioner is a permanent employee of Respondent- Management. He applied for one day's casual leave on 2-2-1976 and subsequently asked for 60 days leave and he was issued a Memo stating that casual leave was sanctioned and that he left the station without taking prior permission and extended leave which was not sanctioned. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Officer, Government Hospital. The said letter, however, was returned unserved by the postal authorities with the endorsement, "addressee was not residing at Anakapalli". A Charge sheet dated 17-5-1976 was issued framing charges against the petitioner to the effect mat he failed to comply with leave rules and failed to give any intimation of his absence and that his unauthorised absence was without permission. The same was also returned unserved. The Respondent-Management therefore removed the petitioner from service w.e.f, 17-6-1976. The petitioner on coming to know about his removal from service, made a representation to the Management which was received on 17-12-1976. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities on 24-2-1978 offering to join duty and requested that the period from 5-12-1976 to 22-2-1978 be treated as leave. The Management, however, refused to take him back on the ground that he was already removed from service. At the instance of the petitioner, conciliation proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the State Government referred the dispute under Section 10(l)(d) and Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Tribunal for adjudication. The question referred for decision of the Tribunal reads as under:

(3.) The petitioner-workman, however, has questioned the Award to the extent the impugned Award denied him backwages and continuity of service. The sole point for consideration in the above writ petition therefore is whether the Tribunal was justified in not granting backwages from 3-2-1976 onwards and continuity of service for the period 3-2-1976 to 24-2-1978.