JASPAL SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-workman was employed as driver on December 27,1985 on daily wages by the Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh on rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh. He was thereafter appointed on ad hoc basis and given appointment for 89 days from time to time. It was specifically mentioned in his letter of appointment that his services could be terminated even before expiry of the period of his appointment in case his work and conduct were not found satisfactory. It is alleged that he absented himself from duty with effect from February 1, 1988 and in spite of letters written to him to resume duty he continued to remain absent. Consequently, his services were terminated on May 12,1988 with effect from February 1, 1988. This termination gave arise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Patiala under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act)~After recording evidence cf the Parries, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman was absent with effect from February 1,1983 and in spite of letters written to him by the management to resume duty he did not do so. The Labour Court, thus, held that the order of termination was justified and legal. The reference was decided in favour of the management and against the workman. It is this award that is now under challenge in this petition tiled by the workman under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate appeared for the management.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the management and perused the impugned award. Since the workman remained absent with effect from February 1,1988 the management was justified in terminating his services. According to the terms of his employment his services could be terminated any time if Ms work was not found satisfactory. Obviously when he.absented himself from duty without leave the management was justified in forming an opinion that he was not working satisfactorily. This termination was in accordance with the terns of his employment and, therefore, did not amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. In such a situation the management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.