The main legal point established in the judgment is that dismissal based on a charge of absence from duty for a single day must be conducted in a fair manner, and unfair labor practices such as victimization are not justified.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

CM No. 12155 of 2015

1. Allowed as prayed for and Annexure A-1 is taken on record. CM No. 12156 of 2015 and CWP No. 13364 of 2014.

2. This is an application for advancing the date of hearing from 18th December, 2015. The application has been filed in the background that the executing court has taken steps in implementation of the impugned award dated 10th January, 2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and called upon the management to pay the awarded amount by 19th September, 2015. The application has come up for hearing one day short of the date fixed before the executing court. The Labour Court has set aside the illegal termination order and granted reinstatement to the previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 9th November, 1998 in favour of the respondent workman.

3. The workman has appeared in the present case on notice and is contesting it by filing written statement. While hearing the counsel for the petitioner applicant pressing for an order of stay of the execution proceedings went into the merits of the case and came to the conclusion that the main case presents no interference with the award and therefore heard counsel at length on the main case today itself by advancing the date of hearing without notice to the respondent workman whose presence was not felt necessary and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the impugned award is sound in law and the petition deserves to be dismissed. The reasons which have impelled me to dismiss the petition are recorded below. Towards this, noticing the essential facts is felt necessary for adjudication. The facts are like this:

4. The workman was employed as a Printing Operator on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2850/- per month. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court in the reference made by the appropriate Government to adjudicate the validity of the order of dismissal after an inquiry following a charge sheet dated 21st November, 1998 issued to the respondent-workman alleging absence from duty without prior permission on 18th June, 1998. In the inquiry the charges were proven and report was submitted for consideration of the management. The management had served a show cause notice dated 25th January, 1999 proposing extreme punishment of dismissal from service. The charge was of absence from duty for a single day which the management imputed had adversely affected its production. The workman filed reply to the show cause notice on 11th February, 1999. The show cause notice dated 25th January, 1999 referred to a charge sheet dated 7th July, 1998 for the same occurrence which was not served on the workman. He stated in his defence reply that he had no knowledge about the enquiry instituted against him.

5. In the meanwhile, the workman raised an industrial dispute by serving the demand notice before the Conciliation Officer, Rohtak claiming that he was being wronged by the proposed action. The proceedings before the Conciliation Officer were fixed for 8th February, 1999. The reply was addressed to the Inquiry Officer appointed by the petitioner management. The inquiry report dated 7th July, 1998 [prepared ex parte] records that the workman did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. The notice of inquiry proceeding initiated by the management was sent to the permanent address of the workman and was received back by the Inquiry Officer with the comments of the postal staff, "prapatkarta naukri Delhi Mein, Lihaja". A copy of the notice sent to the temporary address which was received back unserved.

6. The management representative informed the Inquiry Officer that no other contact particulars of the delinquent workman were available on the records of the company. A fresh attempt was made to serve the workman but without success as neither the notice was received back served nor the acknowledgement due receipt returned. The inquiry was