TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ applications, the award given in Reference Case No. 1 of 1974 by the Labor Court, Jarushedpur, has been challenged. These two writ applications have therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment,

(2.) Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 38 of 1978 (R) and petitioners (five in number) in C.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1978 (R), were at the relevant time work men of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, Jamshedpur (TELCO). In the year 1970, respondent Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 38 of 1978 (R) and petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1978 (R) were arrested by the police on criminal charges. While in Jail, respondent No. 3 (Balwindar Singh) In C.W.J.C. No. 38 of 1978 (R) applied for leave and he was granted eleven days' leave. Balwindar Singh did not join his duty after expiry of the period. Petitioner No. 5, Karam Singh in C.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1978 (R) also applied for leave. But it was rejected. The other workmen never applied for any leave and from the very beginning they were absenting without any permission. Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 38 of 1978 (R) and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1978 (R) were charge-sheeted for continuous absence without permission as provided under Standing Order No. 24 Clause (xi) of the Certified Standing Orders of TELCO and it was served on all of them while they were in jail. Respondent No. 3, Balwindar Singh in C.W.J.C. No. 38 of 1978 (R) and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1978 (R) submitted their show cause. In the domestic enquiry conducted on behalf of the Management, except petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1978 (R) none of the charge-sheeted workmen participated. On the basis of the report of the Enquiring Officer, those workmen were discharged from the service of TELCO.

(3.) Although petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in C.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1978 (R) were also absenting from duty continuously without permission, as they had also been arrested by the police, the Management instead of taking any disciplinary action for misconduct, discharged them in exercise of power under Standing Order No. 47.