PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 25-11-94 passed by respondent No. 1, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 154/90.

(2.) Petitioner's case, inter alia, is that he is a permanent employee posted as Magazine clerk at Chasnala colliery under respondent No. 2, the Management of M/s. Indian iron and Steel Company Limited. The petitioner went on authorised leave from 1-7-74 to 20-9-74. He could not resume duty immediately thereafter and had applied for extension of leave and sent it to the colliery management by post. Respondent No. 2, however, terminated the services of the petitioner by its letter dated 8-10-74 which was made effective from 21-9-74. It is stated by the petitioner that due to unavoidable circumstance, he could not raise his dispute till the year 1987. The management of respondent No. 2 received a letter from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad about raising of dispute by the petitioner. Ultimately, the Central Government Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 referred the following dispute to respondent No. 1, the tribunal for adjudication: Whether the management of M/s. U.S. Com. Ltd. Chasnala Colliery, P.O. Chasnala, Distt. Dhanbad, was justified in terminating the services of Shri Prahlad Singh, Magazine clerk vide their letter No. 2-B(iv)/2008 dt. 8-10-1974? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled.?

(3.) The management in its written statement filed before the tribunal admitted that the workman was granted leave with effect from 1-7-74 to 20-9-74 and he was required to resume duty on 21-9-74 which he did not do and continued remaining absent without permission and without sending any intimation. The management, thereafter, through a registered letter dated 27-9-74 advised him to resume duty. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was terminated by letter dated 8-10-74 since the workman had lost lien on his appointment within the meaning of Order 10(f) of the Certified Standing Orders. The management's further case is that under provision of 10(f) of the Certified Standing Orders, loss of lien on appointment was automatic and it was not necessary to issue a letter in this regard to the workman concerned. It was further stated that the dispute is overstate and hence, the workman cannot be granted any relief.