HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD Vs. K S NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant Hindustan Steel Limited is directed against the concurrent decisions of the courts below.

(2.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the order of termination dated 25-11-67 of plaintiff' employment under the defendant is illegal, void and inoperative and for a further declaration that the plaintiff still continues in the employment of the defendant and for a permanent injunction.

(3.) FACTS which are not in dispute, may briefly be stated. The plaintiff respondent was appointed as a loco driver of Hindustan Steel Limited sometimes in December, 1959 and whilst in that employment, the plaintiff absented himself from his duty from 27th to 29th June, 1967. On 30th June, 1967, the plaintiff appeared and submitted a leave application. Subsequent two days viz. 1st and 2nd July, 1967 were weekly off-days. From 3rd July, 1967 onwards the plaintiff absented himself from duty without submitting any application for leave. On 14-7-67, the defendant appellant asked the plaintiff to resume his duties and on 17th July, 1967 the plaintiff applied for leave along with a medical certificate. On 21st July, 1967, the plaintiff was asked to produce a medical certificate from a medical officer of the Durgapur Steel Plant Hospital at Durgapur but he did not respond to the said direction. On 28th August. 1967, the Superintendent, traffic and Raw Materials Department durgapur Steel Plant terminated the service of the plaintiff with effect from 27th June, 1967 on ground of prolonged absence under Rule 16 (x) of the Standing Orders (to be hereinafter referred to as S. O. for the sake of brevity) of the company. The said order was subsequently cancelled by the Superintendent, traffic and Raw Materials Department by another order dated 25th November, 1967 whereby, the service of the plaintiff was terminated with effect from 3-7-67 on ground of prolonged unauthorized absence in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 (x) of the S. O. The plaintiff unsuccessfully made several attempts for revoking the order of termination and finally instituted the present suit on 12th December, 1967 challenging the order of termination as void inoperative and illegal.