S SADASIVA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the decision of the Government of Orissa (opposite party No. 1) contained in its Office Memo No. 8950 (3)/leh. , dated 1-8-67 (Annexure G) by which it refused to refer the dispute under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and direct reference of the dispute for industrial adjudication on a reconsideration of facts and circumstances. Government of Orissa, Labour, Employment and Housing Department. Office Memorandum Sub: Industrial Dispute between the management of Shree Durga Glass Works, Barang, Cuttack and their workman Shri S. Sadasiva Rao. Ref: Letter No. 3725 (2) Co. dated 2-6-67 of the D. L. O. Conciliation Officer, Cuttack.

(2.) ON consideration of the above report of the Conciliation Officer, the State Government are satisfied that there is no case for reference of the dispute for adjudication as Shri Rao remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 7-9-65 and on that date he was deemed to have left his services on his own accord. Sd. /- R. K. Routroy, Under-Secretary to Government. Memo No. 8950 (3) LEH. dated 1-8-67. Copy forwarded to the Labour Commissioner, Orissa/m/s. Shree Durga Glass Works, Barang, Cuttack/sri S. S. Rao, C/o Bhima Ice Factory, Cuttack-3. Sd. /- Illegible, Under-Secretary to Government.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was a permanent workman employed under opposite party No. 2 with effect from 25-9-69. He took leave for ten days with effect from 26-8-65 and rejoined duties on 6-9-65. He again availed leave for two months from 7-9-65 as the illness of his wife got aggravated. He reported for duty on 8-11-65 on expiry of the said leave, but was not permitted to join. He complained to the Labour Commissioner and District Labour Officer on 26-1-69 alleging refusal of permission to resume duties on 8-11-65. Opposite party No. 2, on being requested to offer his comments on the complaint made by the petitioner, informed the District Labour Officer by its letter No. 1070/66 on 27-10-66 that petitioner's name had been struck off from the attendance register on 9-12-68 as he remained absent without taking permission of the authorities from 7-9-65. The Conciliation Officer acting under Section 12 (1) of the Act initiated conciliation on 11-3-67 and gave notice to the parties to attend the conciliation proceedings on 21-3-67. Opposite party No. 2 did not attend the conciliation held and accordingly the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report under Section 12 (4) of the Act to opposite party No. 1 on 2-6-67. On a consideration of the conciliation report, opposite party No. 1 passed the impugned order declining to make a reference as aforementioned.