Modella Woollens, Ltd., Chandigarh v. Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, And Another

1. This is a petition under Art. 220 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the award, dated 9 July, 1990, copy Annexure P/4, of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, whereby the Labour Court has held the termination of the service of the respondent-workman as illegal. The Labour Court has further held that respondent-workman is entitled to reinstatement with effect from 11 August, 1987 with the benefit of continuity of service. However, the Tribunal directed that respondent-workman will only be entitled to 50 per cent of the back-wages.

2. Admittedly the services of the respondent-workman have been terminated by the petitioner management on the ground that the respondent-workman absented from duty. It has been authoritatively held by the Supreme. Court in Jai Shanker v. State Of Rajasthan, [A.I.R 1966 S.C 492], that termination of the service on the ground of absence from duty amounts to misconduct. If the services have been terminated on the ground of misconduct it was incumbent upon the management to serve a chargesheet and hold a regular enquiry against the workman. No such enquiry was held. Therefore, plainly the order of termination of service is contrary to the provisions of the Standing Order and the principles of natural justice.

3. Learned counsel for the management has not been able to show how the order of the Labour Court suffers from any legal defect. He has not been able to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein it is held that termination of service on the ground of absence from duly amounts to misconduct. The only contention of the learned counsel for the management is that the management has not terminated the services of the respondent-workman but it is a case of abandonment of duty. I am afraid this is not the correct factual position. According to the stand in the written statement as well as according to the arguments raised before the Labour Court it is clear that services of the respondent-workman were terminated on the ground of absence from duty. Termination of service on the ground of absence from duly constitutes termination by misconduct. No termination is permissible on the ground of misconduct unless proper enquiry is held according to the principles of natural justice.

4. Learned counsel for the management has relied upon the judgments reported in National Engineering Industries, Ltd., Jaipur v. Hanuman, [1967 — II L.L.J 883], Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company, Ltd., Jamshedpur v. Industrial Tribunal, Ranch), [1990 — I L. L. J. 403], India and Steel Company, Ltd. v. Their workmen, [A.I.R 1958 S.C 130] and Burn and Company Ltd. v. Their employees, [1957 — I L. L. J. 226], in support of his contention. These authorities are clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. I am of the opinion that this is not a case of abandonment of duty but is a case of termination of service on the ground of absence from duly. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the management.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner-management is directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with immediate effect and allow 50 per cent of the back-wages from the date of termination till the date of award of the Labour Court with 12 per cent interest. After the date of the award of the Tribunal, the respondent-workman will be entitled to full back-wages with 12 per cent interest. It is clarified that the respondent-workman will be entitled to all the benefits of increment and revision of grades of pay which have taken place in the management. Back-wages be paid to the respondent-workman within one month.