NIRMAL SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT BHATINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Petitioner Nir-mal Singh son of Surjan Singh-workman (for brevity the workman) was working with the Management of the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (Respondent No. 2) (for short the "PUNSUP") as a Chowkidar at a monthly salary of Rs. 750/-. As his services were stated to have been illegally terminated by the PUNSUP on 20.5.1988, therefore, he raised an industrial dispute, in view of the provisions of section 10(1)(c) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Act"). The workman claimed that since his services were illegally terminated without any notice, charge sheet, inquiry or compensation, so, he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages as per his statement of claim (Annexure Rl).

(2.) The PUNSUP contested the claim of the workman and filed the written statement (Annexure R2), inter-alia pleading that he (workman) remained absent from duties without any leave or permission of the Management and did not turn up on his duty. According to the PUNSUP that since the workman voluntarily remained absent and left the service, so, question of any notice, charge sheet, inquiry or compensation did not arise at all. It will not be out of place to mention here that the PUNSUP had stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the reference petition and prayed for its dismissal.

(3.) In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case: