Honble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful employer, seeking to assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.1.2008, dismissing the writ petition, whereby the appellant had challenged the award of the learned Labour Court, Udaipur dated 17.9.1992, whereby respondent No.2, hereafter referred to as the workman, was ordered to be reinstated, by finding his termination to be violative of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and also held the workman entitled to 50% of the basic pay and allowance, to be paid within 3 months, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12%, and also directing, that for the purpose of future service, promotion, and other benefits, the workman shall be treated to be in continuous service, and also awarded Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses.

(2). The necessary facts, as appearing from award, produced as Annexure “N” are, that vide order dt. 6.7.1990 the reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, for deciding the question, as to whether the termination of the workman Vinod Kumar resident of Udaipur is valid and proper, and if not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

(3). On receipt of the reference, the workman filed the claim alleging interalia, that he was initially appointed by the employer in 1975, and appointed in “A” Division Dual Extruder, as Mill Man, and was being paid Rs. 1100/- per month. He continued to serve regularly till 3.7.1985, from which date he fell ill, and got treated in E.S.I. Hospital, wherefrom he was advised bed rest from 4.7.1985 to 20.7.1985. Accordingly, the workman applied for leave with medical certificate. After completion of leave, on 21.7.1985, when he reported on duty, he was not allowed to join the duty, i.e. he was not taken back. Of course, leave for the said period from 4.7.1985 t0 20.7.1985 was sanctioned. The case of the workman further is, that even thereafter he regularly went on meeting the officers of the Personnel Department, but he was not even allowed to enter the factory premises, and on meeting outside, he was regularly assured to be taken back. It was also contended that no disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him, nor any charge was framed, and no notice, or one month’s pay, was given to him, the employer did not publish any seniority list, and persons junior to him are still serving. Thus it was claimed, that his termination is bad, and he was required to be treated to be in continuous service, and was required to be reinstated, with all consequential benefits.

(4). The employer contested the claim, by pleading interalia, that the workman was appointed since 17.11.1976, on the post of Mill Man, and did work till termination, but during this period he never served satisfactorily. It was pleaded, that he was not appointed on monthly basis, but he was appointed on basic salary of Rs. 26.62 per day, apart from other allowances, like D.A., Conveyance, House rent etc., which was payable for the days he actually works. The employer pleaded, that earlier, on account of unauthorised absence, the services were terminated on 20.2.1982. However, before the Conciliation Officer compromise was arrived at on 10.10.1982, and pursuant thereto, he was taken back on job, but the workman did not improve. Then, in para-2 of the reply, details of his absence during the period of service have been given, and that does show, that after 10.10.1982 also, in 1983 he remained unauthorisedly absent for 88 days, while in 1984 his absence was as high as 129 days, and in 1985 even till 20.7.1985 unauthorised absence was at a level of 117 days. It was also pleaded, that the workman discharged duties last on 26.6.1985, and thereafter applied for medical leave, and casual leave for two days, sent medical upto 19.7.1985, and application for leave was sent on 20.7.1985, and even thereafter, without any information, or getting the leave sanctioned, he remained absent. Then it is pleaded, that it w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document