Mangal Singh vs The Presiding Officer and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner, who was working as Turner with the respondent-management, has filed the present petition impugning the award dated 19.7.1995, passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar (for short, ''the Tribunal''), whereby termination of his services has been upheld. Though learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that before passing the order of termination, during the course of enquiry appropriate opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner, however, the fact remains that after the petitioner-workman had proceeded on two days leave on 28th and 29th May, 1986, he failed to join back his duty. Notices dated 5.6.1986 and 24.6.1986 were sent by the management to him, but still the petitioner did not join duty. It is admitted by the petitioner in his statement before the Tribunal that it is at the correct address at which communications were sent to him, which were not returned back undelivered. On account of absence of petitioner, charge-sheet was issued to him on 10.9.1986. Enquiry Officer was appointed. On account of non-service of notice on the petitioner, which was sent by post, the same was directed to be published in the newspaper. Despite that the petitioner failed to put in appearance before the Enquiry Officer. Under these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer considering the material produced before him and submitted his report on the basis thereof. The disciplinary authority, vide order dated 1.5.1987, terminated the services of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not granted due opportunity either by the management before regular enquiry was initiated against him or by the Enquiry Officer for representation of the petitioner before him during the course of enquiry.

Another case pertaining to the same management was considered by this court in C.W.P. No. 8806 of 1997--Hardeep Singh v. M/s. Lyallpur Rubber Mills and another, decided on 30.7.2009, where under similar circumstances, the workman was dismissed from service and the award of the Tribunal upholding the order of dismissal was not interfered with by this court. Even Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 1640 of 2010 filed against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by this court on 2.12.2010.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.