SHRI MEWALAL Vs. CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER, THE NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION, LOKTAK, MANIPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Loktak Hydro Electric Project, Manipur in 1975 as lineman casual worker and since then he was in that service till 1983. He was sanctioned Earned Leave with effect from 9.5.83 to 4.6.83 prefixing 8th May and suffixing 5th June by an order of the Assistant Manager (Elect.) Construction Division No.1, National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd, Loktak Hydro Electric Project, Manipur respondent No. 2 herein, on medical ground. It is the case of the petitioner that due to illness, he could not join on 6.6.83 and he sent a telegraphic message to the respondent No. 2 on 30.5.83 i.e. before the expiry of the leave period praying for extension of his leave on medical ground. However, in his letter dated 11.6.83, respondent No. 2 stated that Earned Leave granted to the petitioner expired on 5th June, 1983 but till date he had not reported for duty and no information was received from the petitioner's side. The petitioner was thereby informed that he should join his duty to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer within 8 days of the date of issue of that letter, failing which his name would be struck off from the project roll as per NHPC Rule. The petitioner arrived at his working place on 18th June, 1983 and submitted his joining report to the Sub Divisional Officer on the same forenoon and his joining report was forwarded by the said Sub Divisional Officer, respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2. It was only after joining that he received the letter of respondent No.2 dated 11.6.83. The respondent No.2 already passed the impugned order on 13.6.83 that is, 2 days after he sent his letter dated 11.6.83. The petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 13.6.83 only on 21.6.83 when he was on duty after his joining on 18.6.83.

(2.) The impugned order purported to terminate the petitioner's service as lineman with effect from 13.6.83, (A.N.) under the Rule No. 9 (3) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.6.83 to respondent No.2 praying that his joining report be accepted and he be allowed to resume his duty with effect from 18.6.83. This was not received by respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Project Manager of Loktak N.H. Project dated 30.7.83 stating his case and praying that his case be considered and he be reinstated immediately by cancelling the termination order. It is the petitioner's case that this was also not replied to. The petitioner thereafter served notice dated 3.9.83 demanding justice and finally he submitted a representation to the Manager elect) Loktak N.E. Project stating his case and praying for reinstatement This too, Mr.Gopalachari submits, has not been replied to. Instead, by letter dated 25.7.83 the petitioner was asked to vacate his quarter. Hence, this petition- That order, however, has been stayed by this Court.