The Court ruled that termination without notice and opportunity to explain absence violated principles of natural justice, justifying reinstatement and compensation.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. Y Kothari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. A Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B Das, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.3. Ms. U Das, the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the award dated 10.05.2016 passed in Reference Case No.2/2015 and Case No.1/2015. The petitioner has also assailed the execution proceedings being Execution Case No.4/2016 pending before the Court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup(M) Guwahati, which is consequential to the Award dated 10.05.2016.

3. The brief facts which had led to the present proceedings are that the respondent No.3 was initially appointed as a contract employee by the petitioner company on 05.08.2003 and subsequently his services were regularized as permanent employee on or from 01.09.2006 with a permanent ESI No.430069555. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 took leave on 10.06.2013 without making any formal application as per the procedure of the company and chose to come back to rejoin after 1(one) month 20(twenty) days of unauthorized absence i.e., from 10.06.2013 to 30.07.2013. The petitioner company on the basis of Clause 11(b) of its Standing Orders, dispensed with the services of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 being aggrieved preferred an application under Section 2 A (2)/33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947), challenging the said termination of the respondent No.3 before the learned Labour Court, Guwahati. This application was registered as Case No. 1/2015. In the meantime, the appropriate Government, i.e. the State of Assam had made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Guwahati vide Notification dated 30.01.2015 and the issues which were referred to were:

(i). Whether the workman is justified in demanding more money above his legal dues from the management of M/s. Kishlay Foods Private Ltd.?

(ii). If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to?

4. Before proceeding further, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the application so filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 2 A (2)/33 C (2) of the Act of 1947, which was registered as Case No.1/2015. The case of the respondent No.3 was that the respondent No. 3 went to his native place at Bihar on leave for one month from 10.06.2013 with due approval with an advance payment of Rs.7000/- on endorsement of the foreman Binay Srivastav; in charge of the office Aswini Goswami; Accountant, Sudeep Dutta and Cashier, Ram Gopal Sharma. The respondent No.3, further stated that in Bihar, during leave, he had to take medical treatment on account of high fever on 05.07.2013 and resultantly he had to delay his return from Bihar and the respondent No.3, reported to his duty on 30.07.2013 with medical certificate. It is the case of the respondent No.3 that the petitioner company herein refused to allow him to join his duty and further imposed restriction upon his entry into the premises of the establishment and the respondent No.3 alleged such a termination to be an illegal termination. It was further alleged that on 10.09.2013, the petitioner company, called the respondent No.3 and verbally offered a lump sum of Rs.40,000/- as full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement. The respondent No. 3 disagreed and moved for settlement through conciliation. The authority, Labour Officer-c