N. K. Sodhi, J.

1. Ramphal-petitioner (for short, the workman) was employed as a welder-cum-fitter with respondent 2 since January 1, 1983 and his monthly salary is stated to be Rs.1875/-. The management alleged that the vorkman was highly irregular in attending to his duties and the record of his attendance for the past three years with effect from December 16, 1992 was rather ] poor. He is said to have worked for 171 days in the year 1991, for 73-1/2 days during the year 1991-1992 and for only 64 days till December 16, 1992 and that in spite of several warnings he did not improve. The management is stated to have served him with a charge sheet and after holding a domestic enquiry in which he was found guilty of being a habitual absentee his services were terminated on January 14, 1993. This termination gave rise to an industrial dis-pute and the workman served the management with a demand notice under Sec.2 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act ). The dispute between the parties was taken up for conciliation by the Conciliation Officer. These proceedings proved abortive and the Conciliation Officer must have sent his failure report to the Sta