Arun Industries vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 848 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 1st February 1982 passed by the Labour Court in LCID No.23 of 1977.

2. The question that was referred for adjudication is as follows:

"Whether the services of Shri Hari Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled?"

3. The Respondent/workman was in the employment of the Petitioner since sometime in 1973. During February-March 1977 he received a message from his native place regarding his gona. Accordingly, he applied for leave on 25th March 1977 for about a month during April and May 1977 but no action was taken on the leave application. Again on 5th April 1977 he applied for leave but it was refused on the ground that many workmen had applied for leave one month in advance, and he would be allowed leave only on their return. According to the Respondent/workman he again applied for leave and it was orally sanctioned, so he left for his native village.

4. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent/workman was not sanctioned leave but he nevertheless went away. Accordingly, a letter was sent to him to report back on duty but it was returned with an endorsement of refusal.

5. The Respondent/workman alleged that he reported back for duty on 10th May 1977 but the Petitioner declined to permit him to rejoin. In view if this, the Respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute that he had been terminated from service, while the Petitioner responded by saying that the Respondent/workman had abandoned his job.

6. The learned Labour Court concluded that the Respondent/ workman had applied for leave for the first time only on 5th April 1977. Though leave was not sanctioned, the Respondent/workman left for his native place. It was also held that the Respondent/ workman had refused to receive the letter sent to him by the Petitioner but that he did report back for duty on 10th May 1977 when the Petitioner declined to allow him to rejoin duty.

7. On these broad facts, the learned Labour Court found that the Petitioner had in fact terminated the services of the Respondent/ workman and that it was not a case of abandonment of service. Consequently, the learned Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the Respondent/workman in service with full back wages, giving liberty to the Petitioner to take disciplinary action against him for his unauthorised absence from duty.

8. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the real dispute between the parties was not referred. According to him, it was a case of abandonment of service and not one of termination. It appears to me that in fact, abandonment of service is a defense to an allegation of illegal termination of service and this defense was put up by the Petitioner but it was not accepted by the learned Labour Court. I do not find any error in the order of reference.

9. What is abandonment has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the famous case of G.T. Lad & Ors. vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd., . It has been held that a temporary absence from duty cannot be treated as abandonment but it must be a permanent break intended by the workman. In so far as the present case is concerned, the learned Labour Court rightly held that there was no intention of the Respondent/ workman to abandon service. He had been working with the Petitioner for quite a few years and he had in fact applied for leave, which he would not have done had he wanted to abandon his duties. It is only because leave was not sanctioned that the Respondent/workman left, but later on he returned back to rejoin duties, which he was not allowed to do. It is quite clear from the intention of the Respondent/workman that he did not want to abandon service on a permanent basis but he wanted to take leave for his personal work. At best, it could be said that the Respondent/ workman had misconducted himself and for this liberty has already been granted to the Petitioner to take disciplinary action, if so advised.

10. Looked at from any point of view, therefore, there does not seem to be any merit in the submissions urged by learned counsel for the Petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.