GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD Vs. EIGHTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Rule, the petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and which owns and have several factories registered under the Factories Act, has impeached an Award dated December 16, 1974, made by the Respondent Eight Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in an application under section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), filed by shri Bhawani Singh, Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the said. Respondent ).

(2.) THE said Respondent at the material time was employed in the petitioner's Jute Mill at Gondalpara. The petitioner has stated that the terms of service and conditions of its employees at all material time and still today, are governed by a set of rules as incorporated in its Standing Orders duly framed and certified. It has been stated that clause 9 of the said Standing Orders and more particularly sub-clause (b) thereunder, lays down that if a workman after proceeding in leave deserves an extension, he should apply through the head of the department to the Manager who shall send a written reply either granting or refusing the same on merit to the workman, if his address is available and if such reply is likely to reach him before the expiry of the leave originally granted. It appears that under sub-clause (c) of clause 9 of the said Standing Orders, if the workman concerned do not explain satisfactorily, over staying on leave, if any, he would loose lien on his service and would be kept in the list of Badlies and clause 14c (V) of the same, which deals with habitual absence, lays down that absence without leave for more than 10 days would expose him to the charge of misconduct for which appropriate actions including an order for dismissal may be passed.

(3.) THE said Respondent admittedly made an application for leave for eight weeks between the period from April 3,1972 to May 28,1972 and such leave was granted on the assurance given by him that he would not have such leave extended further. Such assurance was taken as during the period when the leave was asked for the petitioner generally suffered from darth of employees. There is also no dispute that subsequent to the expiry of the sanctioned leave, the said Respondent did not report for duty but asked for extension of the same on some grounds which has been alleged by the petitioner to be not bonafide, but wrongful and not genuine. It has also been contended that the said Respondent did not act in terms of his assurance. The petitioner has stated that such extension of leave was not granted, and ultimately the petitioner treated him to be not interested in his employment. As such on June 15, 1972, the said Respondent was informed that due to his continuous over stay on the expiry of sanctioned leave, and as a consequence of his unauthorised absence, necessary consequences under the Standing Order would follow and thereafter, on appropriate consideration of the matter, the service of the said Respondent was terminated. The petitioner has contended that such action was due and proper and was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, particulars whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore and more particularly when in terms of the Standing Orders, the services of the said Respondent stood automatically terminated.