Back
High Court of Delhi
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Shiv Kumar Giri
Versus
Management of M/s. Hotel Siddhartha Continental & Another
W.P.(C) No. 4764 of 1995
Decided On : 16-04-2014
Termination - Industrial Dispute - Certified Standing Orders - [23] - The court discussed the termination of services based on the violation of Certified Standing Orders, Clause 23, and the respondent's compliance with the provision. The court upheld the termination based on the employee's unauthorized absence and the respondent's adherence to the Certified Standing Orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Electric Helper, claimed that his services were terminated illegally and without payment of legal dues. He sought reinstatement and continuity in service with full back wages. The respondent contended that the petitioner's name was removed from the roll due to continuous unauthorized absence from duties, in accordance with the terms and conditions of service.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court concluded that the petitioner's unauthorized absence led to the automatic termination of his employment as per the Certified Standing Orders, Clause 23. The court also found that the respondent's action did not amount to retrenchment and denied relief to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included whether the petitioner abandoned his job, the compliance with the terms of reference, and the relief sought by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the termination based on the employee's unauthorized absence and the respondent's adherence to the Certified Standing Orders. The court also emphasized the importance of compliance with the principles of natural justice in such cases.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated April 07, 1995 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 198/87 whereby the Labour Court has answered the reference made by the appropriate Government by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
2. Suffice would it be to state that the Industrial Dispute was referred by the appropriate Government vide order dated April 21, 1987 in the following terms:
“Whether the termination of services of Sh. Shiv Kumar Giri is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. It was the case of the petitioner that he was in the employment of the respondent-Hotel as an Electric Helper and his last drawn salary was Rs.475/- per month. With effect from May 02, 1984, he proceeded on leave after getting the same sanctioned, but, he fell seriously ill for which an application was sent to the respondent with the request to extend the leave, which the respondent did. Soon after his recovery from the illness, he resumed his duties on August 20, 1984 along with the medical certificate/fitness, but, the respondent did not allow him to join his duties and asked him to come on the next day. It was his case that, on the next date also, he was told that he would be taken on duty after few days. But even thereafter, he was not allowed to resume the duties. Ultimately, the respondent terminated his services on September 12, 1984 illegally. According to him, the respondent did not pay him legal dues and termination was effected without any charge and enquiry. In his claim petition, he prayed for his reinstatement and continuity in service with full back wages.
4. It was the case of the respondent before the Labour Court that the petitioner’s services were never terminated but his name was removed from the roll due to his continuous unauthorized absence from duties and in accordance with the terms and conditions of service. The respondent admitted that the petitioner was in employment as an Electric Helper and was drawing salary of Rs.475/-. The respondent disputed that the petitioner was honest, diligent worker. According to the respondent, the petitioner was granted leave on account of his sister’s marriage w.e.f. May 02, 1984 to May 07, 1984. He had to join on May 08, 1984, but he did not do so, nor he sent any intimation regarding his absence from duties and he remained absent with effect from May 08, 1984 onwards. It was their case that on May 21, 1984, they had informed the petitioner about his unauthorized absence and also directed him to report for duties immediately, not later than May 24, 1984. The said letter was duly received by the petitioner on May 25, 1984 at his native village address. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of letter, another letter dated May 25, 1985 was sent through registered A.D. cover, whereby the petitioner was once again asked to join the duties latest by May 29, 1984. The said letter was received back with the report of the postal authorities that the addressee has gone for treatment to ESI Dispensary, Akbarpur, Distt. Faizabad. The respondent accordingly sent a letter to the ESI Dispensary, Akbarpur, Distt. Faizabad, who informed that the petitioner was granted Medical Certificate from May 19, 1984, and was given fitness certificate on June 09, 1984, whereby the petitioner was declared fit to resume duties on June 11, 1984; he did not join duty on June 11, 1984. According to the respondent, a letter dated July 05, 1984 was written calling upon him to report for duty, even thereafter, he failed to report. It waited till July 20, 1984, when no intimation was received from the petitioner, and he continued to remain unauthorizedly absent from duties even after the grant of fitness certificate whereby he was advised to resume his duties on June 11, 1984, the respondent, vide letter dated July 20, 1984 informed the petitioner that the
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
