NATHU RAM SAINI Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition involves a challenge to the termination of the service of the petitioner with effect from August 29, 1984 by way of striking off his name from the rolls. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of termination of his service and for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the petitioner is that he joined service of the Hindustan Copper Ltd. , Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu, with effect from September 1, 1967. At the relevant time, he was working as Machinist Grade B. On July 14, 1984 he had gone to Chirawa for meeting his ailing aunt. There he fell sick. July 15, 1984 was a Sunday and that was his off day. He got himself medically examined at Chirawa. The doctor at Chirawa declared him unfit for duty. He submitted an application on July 16, 1984 along with a medical certificate for grant of leave. He remained under treatment up to October 1, 1984 and after having been declared fit to resume duty he reported for duty on October 3, 1984. On that day, he submitted his fitness certificate also. He was, however, not allowed to join duty and was told that his name has been struck off from the rolls of the company. The petitioner submitted an application dated October 3, 1984 to the Deputy Personnel Manager/deputy General Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Copper Ltd. , for being allowed to join duty and finally served a notice for demand of justice. This notice for demand of justice was answered by the respondents on January 23, 1985. In their reply, the respondents claimed that the termination of service of the petitioner was brought about in accordance with para 15. 5 of the Hindustan Copper Limited Workmen's Leave Rules and, therefore, he was not entitled to be taken back in service.

(3.) THE petitioner has assailed the action of the employer on the ground that striking off his name from the rolls amounts to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), and since there has been non- compliance with Section 25-F of the Act it is liable to be declared as void. The further case of the petitioner is that he could not have been treated as having remained absent unauthorisedly because he was ailing and he had submitted sickness certificate. 3a. In their reply, the respondents have pleaded that the workman had remained absent from duty since July 14, 1984. He did not send any intimation or information in relation to his absence. A letter dated August 7, 1984 (Annexure R-1) was sent to him and he was called upon to report for duty within ten days and to submit satisfactory explanation regarding unauthorised absence from duty. He was also informed that if he fails to comply with these requirements his name will be struck off from the rolls of the company on account of loss of lien. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not respond to this letter and therefore, the company ordered striking off his name from the rolls by letter dated August 29, 1984 (Annexure R-2 ). The respondents have denied the statement of the petitioner that he had sent application along with medical certificate. In substance, the case of the respondents is that termination of service of the petitioner on account of striking off his name from the rolls of the company does not amount to retrenchment. According to the respondents this action has been taken in accordance with para 15. 5 of the Leave Rules, which are in turn based on the settlement dated March 27, 1980 arrived at between the employer and the representatives of the workmen.