RANCHI, India, July 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on June 30:

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the Award dated 30.07.1997 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 06 of 1993; whereby the order of termination of Petitioner has been held to be valid, just and proper and consequently, no relief was granted to the Petitioner.

2. As per the pleadings, the Petitioner raised industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court, Ranchi vide reference dated 06.02.1993 and the terms of reference read as under: "Whether the termination of Sri Gadadhar Nayak P. No. 34500 EOT Crane Operator, H.E.C Ranchi is proper? If not, whether he should be reinstated on work or/and should get compensation".

3. The case of the Petitioner-workman before the Labour Court was that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Crane Operator in 01 shop of H.M.B.P., H.E.C on 08.01.1963. He was laborious and sincere as a result of which no complaint, whatsoever, was made against him at material time. Further case of the workman is that while he was working, he was referred to mental hospital on 06.08.1970 for some alleged abnormal behaviour. After examination, the Doctor only advised to take rest and he was discharged.

After availing the leave as per the advice of the Doctor, he joined his duties on 23.11.1970 which was accepted and for this period wages were also paid. But when on 01.12.1970 he went to join his duty, he was neither allowed to perform his duty nor his attendance was marked.

Thereafter, he approached each and every day and requested the Respondents to allow him to join duties. But his request was not accepted. Being aggrieved by the apathetic action, the workman against his wishes submitted his resignation to the then shop superintendent on 12.12.1970.

4. Thereafter, the workman was surprised to receive Letter No. 2864 dated 08.04.1971 issued by the Administrative Officer, H.M.B.P. whereby and whereunder it was informed that the workman had lost lien on appointment with effect from 01.12.1970 as per clause 16(x) of certified standing orders. Thereafter, he met the authorities and represented his case for reinstatement in service.

The authorities instead of passing order of reinstatement, reappointed him on the same post vide Office Order No. 697/71/H.M.B.P dated 01.07.1971 on the terms and conditions stipulated in the office Letter No. 38/PF/H.M.B.P 8008 dated 27.05.1971.

5. The grievance of the Petitioner-workman is that the above orders have been issued in contravention of the provisions of the I.D. Act and the certified standing orders. It is stated that before issuing Letter No. 2864 dated 08.04.1971, no chargesheet and show cause notice were issued for the alleged unauthorized absence from duty and as such the action of the management is bad in law and order dated 08.04.1971 amounts to retrenchment; the same was passed without complying the mandatory provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. Neither a month notice; nor a month wage in lieu of notice was given before termination. The compensation as required under Section 25F was also not given and as per clause C, notice was also not given to the appropriate Government.

6. The case of the Management is that reference is bad in the eye of law. The term of reference is not an Industrial Dispute for the reason that services has not been terminated by the management; on the contrary the concerned workman lost his lien on his appointment due to his own action.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=T2Oj5Y97nX2tmju2FyqIUzhdlME1NZmSXfDW021hrVxrjSiDkJcw8PRkvtblcMgu&caseno=WPC/2135/2013&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010173852013&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.