The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of service must adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act. It also emphasized the entitlement to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution upon attaining temporary status and the requirement to afford sufficient opportunity before termination. Additionally, the court highlighted the settled law that punishment should not be shockingly disproportionate.

1. Being aggrieved by the Award in I.D.No.53 of 2003 ordering reinstatement of 1st Respondent with backwages, BSNL has filed this Writ Petition.

2. Brief facts are that 1st Respondent joined the service in 1986 as Casual Labourer and he was granted temporary status Mazdoor in 1994. 1st Respondent was selected for Group 'D' post and was sent to two months training from 25.09.2000 to 17.11.2000. 1st Respondent has completed theoretical training and he could not attend the training from 01.11.2000. According to 1st Respondent, because of illness, he could not attend the training and informed the Junior Engineer, Training incharge that he would report after recovery from his illness. When 1st Respondent was on leave, the Officer incharge of Training Centre has sent a show cause notice dated 15.11.2000 to discharge the 1st Respondent from training was sent to his residential house. Since there was no response, by an order dated 24.01.2001 the services of 1st Respondent was terminated and the same sent to the 1st Respondent which was returned unserved. According to 1st Respondent, he was taking treatment from his mother-in-law's house and therefore, he could not get the order. Letter dated 15.12.2000 was sent to the 1st Respondent proposing to terminate his services.

3. Challenging the order of termination as unjust, unfair and malafide, 1st Respondent raised Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.53 of 2003. Industrial Tribunal held that Petitioner has not followed the provision of law and that the department has not framed any charge against the 1st Respondent nor conducted any enquiry as contemplated under law. Tribunal took the view that department ought to have followed the mandatory provision of Sec.25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act and held the order of termination as void abinitio. In so far as quantum of punishment, Tribunal held that order of dismissal for his absence is disproportionate particularly when no opportunity was given to the 1st Respondent to explain his absence and on those findings, set aside the punishment order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement with back wages.

4. Challenging the impugned Award, learned counsel for Petitioner contended that only after following the procedures as contemplated under rules and regulations, Telecom department has taken action and that 1st Respondent has not informed his mother-in-law's house or leave address to the department and so department had issued show cause notice only to the address known to the department and therefore 1st Respondent cannot contend that no notice was issued to him before the order of termination. Learned counsel for Petitioner would contend that 1st Respondent was a chronic absentee and having regard to his past conduct of irregular attendance, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate. It was contended that 1st Respondent cannot take advantage of his own mistake since there was no explanation given to the show cause. The department has taken steps for termination of 1st Respondent and therefore, it cannot be said that the action taken by the department is punitive.

5. Learned counsel for 1st Respondent contended that termination of 1st Respondent from service is punitive in nature and was in violation of principles of natural justice and opportunity should have been given to the 1st Respondent before passing the order of dismissal and without holding enquiry and without giving opportunity to the 1st Respondent, order of dismissal passed by the department is illegal and arbitrary. It was contended that 1st Respondent is a workman within the meaning of Sec.2(s) of I.D. Act and he has put in more than 240 days of continuous service in a year and therefore, before retrenching the 1st Respondent, statutory obligation as contemplated under Sec.25F of I.D. Act has to be followed by the department. Contention of 1st Respondent is that he was not issued with any such notice or paid retrenchment compensation a