Shakuntala'S Export House (P) ... vs Secretary (Labour) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 618 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. The present appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned single Judge in WP(C) 4286/03 on 4th February, 2005 confirming the order made by the Labour Court in ID No. 1056 of 1995 (Old No. 149 of 1994). What is required to be noted in the instant case is that relying on the decision of this court, the court has settled that abandonment amounts to misconduct which requires proper enquiry. In the instant case no enquiry has been held. Learned single Judge of this court in the case of MCD v. Sukhbir Singh 1994 2nd 332 has pointed out that the management is duty bound to conduct an enquiry.

2. We put a pointed question to the advocate appearing as to which is the document which would indicate that workman concerned was called upon to join the work. Our attention was drawn to two communications indicating that the Association and the Labour Commissioner were informed about asking the workman to settle their claims. A decision of the Apex court in Punjab and Sindh Bank v. Sakattar Singh (2001) 1 SCC 214 was cited by the learned counsel wherein it is clear that there was no explanation given about the unauthorised absence of the workman and in those facts the court has decided the matter.

3. It is also required to be noted that there are contradictions in the pleas of the management, as noted by the learned single Judge. The facts herein are quite different.

4. Therefore, we find no reason to entertain this appeal. Dismissed.

No orders are required on application for condensation of delay as appeal is dismissed on merits. Dismissed.