HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION AND TUBEWELLS CORPORATION LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HISSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tubewells Corporation Limited (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') seeks quashing of the award dated 9.11.1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent Vinod Kumar had raised a dispute with the petitioner alleging that he was appointed as Mate by the petitioner on daily wages on 19.12.1984. He worked as such uptil 16.8.1985. His services were abruptly terminated w.e.f. 17.8.1985. He claimed that termination of his services was illegal, arbitrary and mala fide being in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') because he was neither given any notice nor was paid any retrenchment compensation. He also stated that principle of 'last come and first go' had not been followed. He did apprentice training for one year from 2.3.1987 to 1.3.1988 and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner-management had contested the said claim and alleged that the respondent-workman had absented voluntarily. From 16.8.1995 the workman did not turn up for duty and abandoned the job himself. The question of termination of his services did not arise. He had submitted an application and was appointed as an apprentice under the Apprentice Act, 1961. Even at that time he did not raise any question of his alleged termination. The learned Labour Court held that domestic enquiry on the charge of absence from duty has not been held. No show cause notice had been served and, therefore, the retrenchment without following the due procedure was illegal. The contention that the claim was barred by time was also rejected. A direction, therefore, was issued that respondent is to be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service. He was not entitled to any back wages from 16.8.1985 to 19.9.1989.

(3.) Aggrieved by same, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner contended that the respondent-workman had left his job without informing or in other words had abandoned the job himself. He did not return to work after 17.8.1985. Otherwise also he had joined the petitioner as a daily wager. On the request of the workman whenever petitioner-Corporation had needed the extra hand or for stop-gap arrangement the workman used to present himself. It was further pointed out that respondent-workman thereafter in 1987 had approached the petitoiner for his appointment as an apprentice workman under the Apprentice Act at Chandigarh. He was appointed but relieved on 1.3.1988. In other words, the case of the petitioner was that there was no retrenchment of the workman.