SUMIT KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 6/8/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge not allowing full wages, the appellant-workman has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

(2.) Undisputed facts are that the appellant-workman was appointed as a Professional Sales Representative w.e.f. 31/1/2002 in the respondent No.2-company. He was promoted on the post on 11/11/2002 and subsequently promoted as Senior Field Officer on 30/4/2004. He remained under the employment from 2002 to 2007 and his services were terminated on 6/1/2007 on account of his alleged absence from duty from 31/12/2006 to 7/1/2007 i.e. for only 7 days. The management terminated his services without issuing any charge sheet or initiating any enquiry proceedings treating it to be a case of abandonment of service.

(3.) An industrial dispute was raised which was referred to for adjudication by the Labour Court. Vide award dtd. 17/2/2014 the Labour Court allowed the reference and answered the same in favour of the appellant-workman holding that there was no abandonment of service by the appellant-workman and his services were terminated by the Management without any show cause notice or disciplinary proceedings and without following the procedure prescribed in Sec. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly directed reinstatement in service with 25% of his basic pay as back wages payable from the date of demand till the date of award.