SWARAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated November 5, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge by which he allowed C.W.P. No.13437 of 1992 filed by respondent No. 1 and set aside the award dated October 28, 1991 passed by Labour Court, Ludhiana for reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and back wages w.e.f. April 27, 1986. THE FACTS:

(2.) The appellant joined service of the Punjab State Electricity Board (respondent No. 1) on February 23, 1977 as Assistant Lineman. He was promoted as Lineman w.e.f. October 3, 1978. On February 4, 1984, he submitted an application for five days casual leave from February 4, 1984 to February 8, 1984. He did not report for duty on February 9, 1984 or thereafter and the letter dated March 16, 1984 sent by the Sub Divisional Officer requiring him to join the duty was received undelivered. After about one year, a notice was got published by the competent authority of respondent No. 1 in The Tribune dated May 6, 1985 requiring the appellant to report for duty within 30 days. There is some controversy between the parties as to whether or not the appellant had presented himself before the Executive Engineer on May 19, 1985, as alleged by him, in response to the said notice, but there is no dispute between them that by order No.506/E.P.-1920 dated December 12,1985, the Superintending Engineer, Distribution Circle, Ludhiana by which he terminated the appellant's service under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 5 (iii) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1970 (for short, the Regulations).

(3.) The appellant challenged the termination of his service by raising an industrial dispute which the Government of Punjab referred to Labour Court, Ludhiana under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). In his statement of claim, the appellant (described as workman in the proceedings before the Labour Court) asserted that the action taken by the employer was liable to be nullified because neither any notice was given to him in terms of Section 25-F of the Act nor any enquiry was held to prove the allegation of misconduct, namely, absence from duty. Respondent No. 1 (described as the employer in the proceedings before the Labour Court) resisted the claim of the workman by contending that he had abandoned the service w.e.f. February 4, 1984. It was also pleaded on behalf of the employer that the services of the workman had been terminated under Regulation 14(ii) of the Regulations because he failed to report for duty inspite of the notices issued by the concerned authorities.