SANT LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that Petitioner-workman Sant Lal (for brevity "the workman") has joined the management of M/s Mitaso Appliances Limited-Respondent No. 3 (for short "the management") on 1.4.1979 as a Die-Casting Operator on permanent basis and was drawing the salary of 892/- per month. He proceeded on sanctioned leave from 12.11.1990 to 30.11.1990 to his village where he fell ill. He was stated to have informed the management through letters. On 10.12.1990, he reported for duty with medical certificate, but he was not allowed to resume his work by the management, despite repeated requests. His services were claimed to have been illegally terminated w.e.f. 10.12.1990 by the management.

(2.) Aggrieved by his dis-engagement, the workman served a demand notice dated 12.12.1990 (Annexure P1) in view of the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). The conciliation proceedings were conducted and the failure report was sent by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate authority.

(3.) The State of Haryana (Respondent No. 1) ultimately rejected the demand notice of the workman, by virtue of impugned order/letter dated 31.5.1991 (Annexure P2) on the ground that he himself has abandoned the services. The workman moved the representations (Annexure P3 and P4) for referring the matter for adjudication, but in vain.