Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 444 (MP)

M. P. AUDYOGIK VIKAS NIGAM v. K. K. SINGH

2002-04-23

S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2002
S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner Employer has challenged the Award dated February 23, 1995 of the Labour Court No. 1, Bhopal, in case No. 39/88 Industrial Disputes Act. Reference, by which the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 in service of the petitioner without back-wages. ( 2 ) THE dispute as to whether the termination of the Respondent No. 1 was legal and proper was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. ( 3 ) THE case of the Respondent No. 1 was that he had been appointed on 14/09/1981 and after he had rendered service for about 5 years, his services was terminated by order dated 29/06/1986 without any reason. It was stated by the Respondent No. I that he had remained absent from duty from 1/03/1996 on account of illness and when he had reported he was not allowed to work. It was alleged that he had completed more than 240 days in a calender year and, therefore, his removal from service amounted to illegal retrenchment. The petitioner had resisted the case of he Respondent No. 1 workman. It was stated that he was working temporarily from 14/09/1981 and from 1/04/1982 he had been granted a regular pay scale. He was most irregular and careless. It was because he had stopped coming for duty that his service had been terminated. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, had observed that employer had not communicated rejection of the letters sent by him on 21/01/1986 and 11/02/1986. Again on 18/02/1986 an application was submitted but this application was also not considered. It was observed by the labour Court that absence from duty was a major, misconduct for which enquiry should have been conducted by the employer. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court directed reinstatement without back-wages. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute that absence from duty was a major misconduct and, therefore, it was necessary to hold an enquiry. Since enquiry was not conducted nor the misconduct was proved before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has rightly directed reinstatement. Under these circumstances, I find no substance in the present petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. .