EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DAM CONSTRUCTION AND SPILLWAY CONCRETING DIVISION RSD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the reference had been answered in favour of the respondent/Workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement in service without back wages. The petitioner/Management had been given liberty to pass fresh appropriate orders after following the procedure laid down in law as well as Certified Standing Orders of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Shahpurkandi in respect of workcharged staff. It has further been stated in the Award that in case fresh action is to be taken by respondent (petitioner herein), then process in this regard be initiated from three months from the date of passing of the Award.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Labour Court had proceeded to decide the reference primarily on the ground that the entire period of absence of the Workman had been regularised by the Management and thus there being no absence period earlier to the date, when he joined the service, i.e., 18.09.1999. She further contends that, although, liberty had been granted to the petitioner/Management to initiate proceedings against the respondent/Workman according to the Certified Standing Orders, but in the light of the findings given by the Labour Court, the said initiation of proceedings would be of no use. Her further contention is that the respondent/Workman was, for his earlier absence period, issued a registered notice as per the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the respondent/Workman to explain his conduct with regard to his absence from duty in the year, 1998, but the same had not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court. She on this basis contends that the Award deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Workman submits that it is an admitted position that after the alleged absence from duty by the Workman, he was allowed to rejoin the duty on 18.09.1999 and he worked for 20 days with the petitioner/Management till 08.10.1999. He contends that the respondent/Workman was not given an opportunity to explain his conduct with regard to absence from duty and Order of his termination had been passed without complying with the provisions, as mandated under the Certified Standing Orders. After rejoining of the respondent/Workman and his absenting from 08.10.1999 onwards, no notice had been served upon him for explaining his conduct and the reason for his absence from duty and, thus, the provisions as contained under the Certified Standing Orders, applicable to respondent/Workman stands violated. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are thus fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court.