DURGA DUTT SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AWARD passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh 19. 6. 1991 (Annexure P4) upholding the termination of the service of the petitioner has been made subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioner (workman ).

(2.) BRIEF facts,-The petitioner was appointed in the service of Salal Hydro Electrical Project Jyotipuram (Jammu and Kashmir) as a daily rated worker in June, 1977. He was made work charged employee w. e. f. 22. 5. 1979 and was paid salary in the grade of Rs. 210-290. On 10. 10. 1984, petitioner's wife died in fire incident. After some days his small daughter also died. The petitioner applied for grant of leave and proceeded for his home town. According to the petitioner, he fall sick due to mental shock and agony which he had suffered due to death of his wife and young daughter and remained under treatment for a long period between 15. 1. 1985 to 15. 1. 1987. He submitted his joining report alongwith medical certificate to the Assistant Engineer but the same were not. accepted. He, therefore, raised an industrial dispute and the Government of India referred the same to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, for adjudication.

(3.) ARGUMENT of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the termination of service of the workman on the ground of absence from duty amounts to termination by way of punishment because absence from duty is one of the misconduct enumerated in para 28. 53 of the Certified Standing Orders and before the petitioner could be punished on the basis of the allegation of misconduct, it was imperative for the employer to have made an enquiry against the petitioner in terms of clause 34 of the Certified Standing Orders. Learned counsel argued that failure of the employer to hold enquiry in accordance with the provisions of clause 34 of the Certified Standing Orders has the effect of rendering employer's act as illegal and contrary to the basic principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that the termination within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the 1947 Act and the Tribunal has seriously erred in overlooking this aspect of the matter.