Madan B. Lokur, J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26th February, 2003 passed by Industrial Tribunal-II in O. P. 389/93, which was an approval application filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE Respondent workman was a driver with the Petitioner. The allegation against him was that from 1st April, 1991 to 31st December, 1991, he was absent for 183 days. One Asha Rani submitted a report on 23rd March, 1992 in this regard.

( 3 ) ON the basis of Asha Rani s report, a charge sheet dated 14th July, 1992 was issued to the Respondent workman. It was alleged that he had misconducted himself within the -meaning of paragraph 19 (f), (h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the employees of the petitioner. These provisions read as follows:-

19. GENERAL PROVISIONS: Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing Standing Orders, the following acts of commission and omission shall be treated as misconduct: (a) to (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) Habitual breach of any rules, law, instructions or orders etc. applicable to the employees of the Authority. (g)xxxxxxxxx (h)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document