HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED Vs. KISHORE PRASAD MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE employer, Messrs. Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela has asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the award given by the Industrial Tribunal?opposite party No. 2 in favour of a workman, opposite party No, 1.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 was admittedly a workman in the employment of the company. He was recruited in May, 1960, and with effect from 1-11-1961, he was promoted as a converterman. The workman was on leave for the period between 16th of March, 1964 and 30th of March, 1964. The workman did not report to duty upon expiry of the leave. According to the employer, he also did not apply for extension of the leave and remained absent for more than a fortnight after the leave expired on 31 3-1964. Understanding Order 16 (x) of the certified standing orders of the employer, the workman lost lien on his appointment and was, therefore, presumed to have left the services of the company of his own accord without notice. His name was, therefore, struck off the rolls of the company with effect from 15-4-1964.

(3.) THE workman alleged that he fell ill from 06-3-1964 while he was on leave and continued to be under treatment till 2-5-1964. He had sent an application to the employer-management for leave. On 2nd of May, 1964, he was declared fit by the medical officer to attend to his duties and accordingly he returned to the place of employment on 3-5-1964 and reported to duty on 4-5-1964. His joining report was not accepted and he was required to be examined by the Ispat General Hospital of the employer. He was declared not on 6-5-1964 and when he came to report to duty, he was refused on the ground that his service had already been terminated. He contended that he was entitled to notice and in the absence of a proceeding his services could not be put an end to.