NAV BHARAT INDUSTRIES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cost of Rs. 10,000/- which was directed to be paid to respondent No. 2-workman vide order dated 21.12.2017 has been paid.

(2.) In the instant petition, petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court dated 28.01.1997 (Annexure P-10).

(3.) Respondent No. 2 was stated to have been appointed as unskilled labourer on 05.02.1981. While he was working as such, he was regularized on 28.04.1981. Due to illness, he remained absent on 11.10.1990. He was taking treatment in the Civil Hospital, Rohtak as a outpatient. Petitioner communicated a letter asking respondent No. 2 to report back to duty within stipulated period. The said letter was not communicated to respondent No. 2 as he was not available at the address furnished to the petitioner as is evident from Annexure P-3. Postman had visited to residential address of respondent No. 2 to deliver letter on 31.10.1990, 1.11.1990, 2.11.1990 and 5.11.1990. Thus, postman was unable to serve letter dated 23.10.1990 to respondent No. 2. When things stood thus, respondent No. 2 is stated to have informed the petitioner on 11.10.1990 stating that he was unwell, by means of sending a letter under certificate of posting. Thereafter, there was no response from respondent No. 2 during the period from 12.10.1990 to 24.01.1991. Thus, petitioners have invoked para 9 (f) (ii) of Certified Standing Order and terminated services of respondent No2. Respondent No. 2 issued a demand notice on 29.03.1991. Since conciliation proceedings failed, reference was made. Labour Court proceeded to pass award in favour of respondent No. 2 on the score that respondent No. 2 being permanent employee for remaining unauthorized, he should be afforded ample opportunity including of holding of inquiry. Thus, present petition by the Management.