E VEERA RAJU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a workman. The award passed by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam refusing to grant any relief to the petitioner is challenged in this writ petition. He claims for reinstatement into service with back wages and continuity of service. The order of termination of his service by the respondent-employer is challenged.

(2.) Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief, few relevant facts may be noticed: The petitioner joined the service of the respondent-establishment on 15-11-1959 as Field Supervisor of Sugarcane Fields. He applied for leave from 4-6-1975 to 12-6-1975 and afterwards extended the leave upto the end of June, 1975. But according to him he resumed duty on 13-6-1975 and submitted his joining report to his immediate superior. But he was asked to wait for reallocation of work and accordingly he was directed to handed over the record to one Sri E. Satyanarayana Raju, Field Assistant Some swaram circle orally. Accordingly, the petitioner handed over his records to the said Satyanarayana Raju on 19-6-1975. But he was not paid his wages from 19/06/1975 onwards inspite of repeated representations. Whereas it is the case of the respondent employer that the workman applied for leave and was on leave from 4-6-1975 till 12-6-1975 and failed to resume duty on 13-6-1975, instead, extended, his leave till the end of June, 1975. The workman neither extended his leave nor resumed duty with effect from 1/07/1975 and lie never reported to duty at any time thereafter. It is the case of the respondent-employer that the petitioner unauthorisedly remained absent from duty beyond the period of sanctioned leave without any justifiable reasons. The petitioner-workman accordingly lost his lien over his employment and deemed to have voluntarily left the service and abandoned the same in terms of Clause 8K of the Standing Orders is the case of the respondent-employer. It is the case of the respondent-employer that the petitioner even received an amount of Rs.500.00 on 24-2-1977 by way of advance towards gratuity payable consequent upon his abandonment of service on loosing lien over the job. The subsequent claim of the petitioner-workman seeking reinstatement and other relief is an after thought.

(3.) It is the case of the workman that the action of the respondent-Management would amount to victimisation and unfair labour practice and constitute retrenchment under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), and therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement into service. It is the case of the respondent- employer that the petitioner lost his Ins hen over the job in terms of Clause 8K of the Standing Orders. The action does not amount to retrenchment. The petitioner voluntarily abandoned the service. The petitioner was merely informed by the proceedings dated 18-7-1977 (marked as Ex.M7 before the Tribunal) that "in view of your continued absence from duty from 1-7-1975 without leave you are deemed to have left the Company's service without notice under Standing Order 8(k) of the Company's certified Standing Orders." It is the case of the employer that the said order does not amount to order of termination as such. But mere declaration under Clause 8K of the Standing Orders declaring that the petitioner lost his lien over his job.