ALFAMET PRIVATE LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the award dated 9.5.1981 (Annexure P-11) rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service with full back-wages (except for the period from 28.12.1977 to 16.11.1978) of respondent No. 3, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the same. Respondent No. 3 had been working with the petitioner on the permanent post of Milling man. He worked upto 25.7.1977. The petitioner terminated his services with effect from 13.7.1977, when he was not provided his normal duties. The workman repeatedly approached the management for work but no heed was paid. Whereupon, workman-respondent No. 3 feeling aggrieved by the same moved the State of Haryana for referring the alleged industrial dispute between him and the petitioner-management and consequently, the Government of Haryana made a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On receipt of the order of reference, the workman filed his claim statement and the petitioner- management filed the written statement. In the written statement the petitioner-management pleaded that it was a case of self-abandonment of service and is not covered under Section 2-A of the Act. It was admitted that respondent No. 3 worked from 18.12.1975 to 25.7.1977. However, it was pleaded that the respondent was employed under a regular appointment letter and he was in the habit of remaining absent from duty which resulted in indiscipline and dislocation of the normal production of the factory and he had been warned verbally from time to time to refrain from absenting without any authorisation or prior sanction of leave. He, however, did not care to improve himself in his attendance. The respondent was absent from duty without any intimation or prior sanction of leave from 12.7.1977 and was thus given an opportunity vide letter dated 15.7.1977, sent to his residential address available with the factory, to report for duty within five days but he failed too avail that opportunity. It was further pleaded that the respondent was absent from duty with effect from 12.7.1977 and as such, the management had no other alternative but to discharge him from the muster rolls register of the Company on 25.7.1978 and not on 13.7.1978.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Industrial Tribunal framed the following issues :-

(3.) After hearing the representatives of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the tribunal decided all the issues against the petitioner-management and in favour of the respondent-workman. Under issue No. 1, it was found that respondent No. 3 was a workman as defined under Section 2-A of the Act. Under issue Nos. 2 and 3, it was found that the workman remained employed with M/s Clutch Auto Private Ltd. from 28.12.1977 to 16.11.1978, after the termination of his services by the petitioner and that this temporary employment of the respondent had no bearing on the present case. Under issue No. 5, the tribunal held that the termination of services of the respondent-workman was neither justified nor in order.