Absence from duty for an extended period can amount to voluntary abandonment of service, negating the need for disciplinary actions prior to termination.

JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petitions, challenge is to the same impugned award dated 03.02.1999 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh by which, workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity but without back wages.

2. CWP-8387-1999, has been filed by the petitioner-bank challenging the reinstatement in service of the respondent No.2-workman whereas, CWP-11349-1999 has been filed by the workman on the ground that the benefit of back wages has been denied to him by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award dated 03.02.1999 (Annexure P/6).

3. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

4. It may be noticed that the workman, who was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier went abroad on ex-India leave in May, 1990, which was valid up to 20.07.1990 but the workman did not return back to join his duty until 06.12.1990. On 06.12.1990, after joining, the workman remained absent from duty initially from 01.01.1991 to 15.01.1991 thereafter, from 21.01.1991 to 23.01.1991 than from 01.02.1991 to 04.02.1991 then, from 14.02.1991 to 28.02.1991 and then from 01.03.1991 to 06.03.1991 and did not perform duties starting from 08.01.1991 onwards.

5. Thereafter, the Bank started giving notices to the workman to join the duty back and even after final notice dated 24.09.1991, the workman failed to join back the duty and ultimately services of the workman were terminated w.e.f. 24.10.1991.

6. Against the said order of termination of services of the workman w.e.f. 24.10.1991, the workman approached the Labour Court.

7. The Labour Court after recording the facts and evidence came to the conclusion that as no enquiry was held against the workman before termination of his services and no retrenchment compensation was granted to him, termination of service of the workman by the bank was bad and therefore, a direction was given by the Labour Court that the workman will be reinstated in service with continuity but without back wages, which is under challenge in the present petitions.

8. Learned counsel for the bank argues that once, initially the workman remained absent by not joining the duty after availing ex-India leave for a period of 05 months and thereafter, again starting from 01.01.1991, he remained mostly absent from duty and then again absented himself from duty from 08.03.1991 and despite notices he did not join back the duty, it is a case of abandonment of job and therefore, treating the same as the case of termination of service by the Labour Court is incorrect.

9. Learned counsel for the bank further argues that in case of abandonment of job, no enquiry was required to be conducted hence, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman's services were terminated without there being any disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the settled principle of law.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the workman argues that even if, the workman remained absent without authority or had gone abroad, the bank was required to hold a disciplinary proceedings after giving due opportunity to the workman and only after proving of the allegations by the bank, the action could have been taken against the workman and as no such procedure was followed by the bank in the present case, the Labour Court has rightly held that as the services of the workman were terminated without holding an enquiry, termination of services of workman was bad.

11. Learned counsel for the workman further argues that once, the termination of the workman was set aside by the Labour Court, the benefit of back w