PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question that requires to be determined in the present writ filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award rendered by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, is as to whether holding of enquiry in respect of misconduct of workman before ordering his retrenchment, is mandatory even if the misconduct is otherwise proved on the records of the case.

(2.) THE facts that have been proved on the records of the case, reveal that Swaran Singh joined service of the petitioner Board on February 23, 1977, and was promoted as Lineman on October 3, 1978. While he was working on the promoted post, he applied for casual leave from February 4, 1984, to February 8, 1984, and left the office without getting the same sanctioned from the competent authority. Even after the expiry of unsanctioned causal leave, he did not return to his duty and abandoned the job, as per the case of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer of the Board addressed a letter to him asking him to resume his duties. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer addressed yet another letter to him on June 27, 1984, at his permanent home address, once again asking him to join his duties. The same was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks that "he had gone abroad". Thereafter, notice was published in the daily The tribune dated may 6, 1985, directing the workman to report for duty within thirty days, failing which his services shall be terminated. Even mis public notice evoked no interest with him as he did not resume his duties even after the expiry of the period mentioned therein. The Board, considering the circumstances, as mentioned above, passed an order removing him from service on December 12, 1985. The order, however, was given effect to from February 4, 1984, the day on which he had abandoned the services of the Board. It is pleaded that the Superintending Engineer of the Board while passing the order dated December 12, 1985, was of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, it was not possible to hold an enquiry against the workman as he had gone abroad and even after repeated communications asking him to join, he had not done so. The Superintending Engineer, therefore, dispensed with the holding of enquiry under Rule 14 (ii) of the Employees Punishment and Appeal Regulations, 1971, and passed a formal order as mentioned above. It is for the first time on April 26, 1986, that is, after the expiry of more than two years since the workman had gone on unsanctioned leave, mat he served a demand notice on the petitioner-management stating that his services had been wrongly terminated. When the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the Government under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, vide its award dated October 28, 1991, held that the order of retrenchment was bad and the workman is entitled to reinstatement but since he was not without blame as he did not even assert that he ever reported for duty or even sent any communication right from the date, i. e. , February 4, 1984, to the date of demand notice, he was not entitled to back wages from February 4, 1984, the date of termination to April 26, 1986, when he served a demand notice on the management. Obviously, while returning a finding in favour of the workman that he was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service, it was held that it was not a case of abandonment and the department, in fact, had taken action against him for his long absence from duty but before the order of termination could be passed, an enquiry had to be held in the matter.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Board vehemently contends that it is always open to the management to prove the guilt of the workman during the course of proceedings before the Labour Court and in case the management is able to prove so, the only relief that a workman can pet is to ask for the wages up to the date an older is passed by the Labour Court holding him guilty of the charges that might have been levelled against him. In the present case, he contends, from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence that was recorded before the Labour Court, it was proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that th workman had in fact left the job on account of his own volition and had not cared to resume his duties even though several letters were written to him and even a notice was got issued in the newspaper. All that workman could say before the Labour Court was that he had made a request to re-join the duties on May 19, 1985, i. e. , after about a year and three months from the date he had gone on unsanctioned leave, but for which there was no proof placed on the records of the case, except a bald assertion in the statement made by him that when his father told him about the press publication, he approached the S. D. E. Circle for posting orders, contends learned counsel.