P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this Special Civil Applicaion has come forward with this Special Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the Award and order of the Labour Court at Ahmedabad passed on 28/ 29/06/1984 in reference LCA No. 810 of 1977 to the extent that it does not award reinstatement with full backwages and all consequential benefits to the petitioner and also for issu ing a writ of mandamus to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with full backwages and with all the consequential benefits as if he has continued in service throughout.

( 2 ) THE short facts of this case are that the petitioner is a workman with the Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation. He was discharged from his service by the respondent as early as 9-3-1977 following Regulation 10 of the Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations 1971 The labour Court which went into this question held that the termination order is quite legal and proper but directed the respondent to pay retrenchment compensation to the workman. The respondent has inter alia contended that the petitioner absen ted himself for number of months in spite of the fact this leave was refused by the respondent. Finally be was informed by the notice dated 13-1-1977 stating that if he did not report for duty and continued disobeying the instruction of the Corporation it will be presumed that he is absent intentionally from duty. It is seen from the facts of the case that the respondent-Corporation had issued final show cause notice as per Regulation 10 of the Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations 1971 calling upon the petitioner herein to explain why his service should not be terminated as he had remained absent intentionally by disobeying the instructions of the Corporation. No doubt a reply was received from the petitioner to this final show cause notice stating that he was not able to report to duty as appointed and that he requires further leave to be sanctioned. The respondent by its termination order which is marked as Ex. 30. terminated the services of the petitioner after following the procedure set up in Regulation 10 referred above. The respondent in its reply affidavit filed in this Special Civil Application has stated that the management was constrained to pass an order of discharge simpliciter against the petitioner herein since the petitioner has voluntarily abandoned the services of the Corporation by not joining at the place of duty in spite of several letters telegrams telephones and reminders to him. Without much adverting to the further facts of the case it is clear from the case put forth by the respondent as well as the case put forth by the petitioner therein that the procedure followed by the respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner was under Regulation 10 of the Gujarat State Warehousing corporation Staff Regulations 1971 and it is a discharge simpliciter and not dismissal of the petitioner herein. Even the Labour Court in its order which is impunged in this Special Civil Application has stated that the order is only a termination order passed by the respondent therein under Ex. 30 and that it is a retrenchment coming under the purview of sec. 25e of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has also stated that the petitioner is entitled to get the retrenchment compensation and that is why the Labour Court has directed the respondent to pay retrenchment compensation to the workman. Mr. G. M. Joshi. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. citing decisions reported in Mohan Lal v. The Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (AIR 1981 S. C. 1253) and Management of Karnatak State Road Transport Corporation Bangalore v. M. Boraiah and another (AIR 1983 SC 1320) submitted that the order passed under Ex. 30 is a retrenchment order simpliciter and such an order without following the other condition mentioned under sec. 25f of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document