KULDEEP SINGH Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -workman has knocked the door of this Court challenging the Award of the Labour Court, whereby, his claim qua termination has been answered against him. Mr. A.S. Gill, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Generator Operator on 01.02.1982 and worked upto 10.12.2002. His services were illegally terminated on 11.12.2002 without any notice, nor any fair and proper enquiry was held and without payment of compensation and at that time, workman was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,000 per month. He further submits that he was not given any show cause notice. He had gone to Germany by obtaining one month's leave with effect from 01.10.2001 to 31.10.2001 though he was supposed to resume duty on 01.11.2001, but could not as he had fallen ill, thus, termination was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and prays that Award of the Labour Court in declining the claim qua termination is illegal, perverse and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book.

(3.) IN view of the aforementioned, it is crystal clear case of the absenting/absenteeism from the duty and the Management had resorted to the legal procedure by sending him letters and thereafter, charge -sheet and appointment of Enquiry Officer but the workman did not even bother to send letter to obtain leave on medical grounds as sought to be projected before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after examining the oral and documentary evidence thread bare came to categoric finding that workman failed to give any reasons whether he was in position to travel to India to join enquiry against him falsified his plea of illness. The application for leave was without specifying the leave period which was sent by him to respondent vide Ex. W3 to Ex. W9, whereas, he never sought leave from January 2002 to May 2002. Thus, the workman absented from the duty with effect from 01.12.2001 and his services were rightly terminated with effect from 11.12.2002. There is no fault with the findings rendered by the Labour Court. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.