Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, S. N. BHATTACHARJEE
ABL LTD., DURGAPUR, BURDWAN - Appellant
Versus
RADHA GOBINDA GHATAK - Respondent
M. A. T. 427 Of 1999
Decided On : 04/13/1999
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - RETRENCHMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - STANDING ORDER - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - ADDUCTION OF EVIDENCE - BACK WAGES - REINSTATEMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant terminated the services of the respondent on the ground of abandonment of service. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the Tribunal held that the termination was justified. The respondent filed a writ petition, and the High Court allowed the petition, holding that the termination was illegal and directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Tribunal erred in holding that the termination was justified, as the appellant had not complied with the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the High Court erred in directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages, as the Tribunal had not yet determined the relief to which the respondent was entitled.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the termination was justified. Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Tribunal erred in holding that the termination was justified, as the appellant had not complied with the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the High Court erred in directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages, as the Tribunal had not yet determined the relief to which the respondent was entitled.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part and directed the appellant to pay a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
( 3 ) THE 1st respondent was working with the appellant herein since 12th October 1972. The 1st respondent on the ground of his illness went on medical leave from 7. 2. 98 to 14. 2. 98. He allegedly submitted his joining report but according to the respondent No. 1 such joining report had not been made to a person authorized in that regard in terms of two circulars issued by the appellant. The terms and conditions of service of the workmen were governed by the Standing Order of the Company certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Clause 2 of section C of the said certified standing order deals with termination of employment of the workman. Clause 2 (iii) of the said section states :"any workman who : (a) absents himself without seeking permission for more than eight consecutive days; having been laid off fails to report without sufficient reason within 8 days of the posting of recall notices or of being otherwise duly notified, (b) shall be deemed to have left the service of the company of his own accord and the same shall be intimated to the workman concerned in writing and he ceases to be an employee of the company provided, however, no explanation satisfactory to the management is adduced forthwith. "
( 4 ) SECTION G of the said standing order deals with leave and holidays. Clause 11 whereof reads thus :-"if the workman remains absent beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment unless- (a) he returns within eight days of the expiry of the leave and (b) explains to the satisfaction of the Manager his inability to return before the expiry of his leave. "
( 5 ) MISCONDUCT of the workmen has been enumerated in appendix 'a' which includes :"frequent late coming, frequent absence without permission of absence without permission or overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds and proper and satisfactory explanation. "however, it has been laid down:"no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him and to adduce evidence, if any, in his favour at an enquiry to be held for this purpose. "
( 6 ) THE matter relating to the alleged absence of the 1st respondent was considered by the Company and a decision was taken to treat the same as absence from duties.
( 7 ) ON or about 15. 2. 89 a letter of termination was issued against the 1st respondent on the ground of his abandonment of service since 7. 1. 1989 which was the date for joining in the duties in the following term: "further to our letter No. 10/absent. /164 dated 12th December, 1988 and 10/absnt. /200 dated 27th December, 1988, in absence of your action to adduce satisfactory explanation for your continued unauthorized and uninformed absence on and from 7th January, 1989 on expiry of your sick leave, you by your own conduct, in terms of Certified Standing Orders of the Company are deemed to have abandoned your services on your own accord. Accordingly, your name is being removed from our rolls with immediate effect. You are advised to settle your accounts with the Company in arrangement with our Accounts Department immediately on receipt of this Letter on obtaining clearance certificate from your Departmental Head. "
( 8 ) THE case of the 1st respondent herein, however, is that he submitted his letters on 7. 1. 89, 9. 1. 89, 10. 1. 89, 11. 1. 89, 13. 1. 89 and 14. 1. 89 praying for permission to join his duties. The said letters were marked as exhibits 30 to 38 b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
