H.M.T. Watch Ltd. vs Labour Court

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—The respondent No. 3/workman was an employee of the factory, namely, H.M.T. Watch Ltd. He was appointed as an Operator on 28.05.1985. On 18th March, 1991 the employer H.M.T. Watch Factory terminated the employment of the workman invoking the provisions of Standing Order 14.1.8 on the ground that he has abandoned his job on his own. The fact of the matter is that the workman/respondent No. 3 had taken leave initially on 01.12.1990 to 06.12.1990 thereafter till 28.03.1991. When, the workman/respondent No. 3 tried to join duties on 29th March, 1991, he was not allowed to join the duties on the ground that his services have been terminated by invoking Standing Order on 18th January, 1991. Standing Order 14.1.8 reads as under:--

"14.1.8 Unauthorized absence from duty and unauthorized over-stay of sanctioned Leave: If a workman unauthorisedly absent or remains absent beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended, he shall be deemed to have abandoned his job on his own and his name be struck off from the muster roll of the Company unless he returns to duty within eight consecutive calendar days and explains to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority, the circumstances as to his inability to attend duty or to return before the expiry of leave.

The Competent Authority shall at its sole discretion decide such cases and its decision shall be final and binding. In such cases, a workman will be deemed to have terminated his employment of his own accord without notice and to have abandoned his services voluntarily."

According to the workman/respondent No. 3, the reason for initially remaining absent from duty was that he was sick and on the fact that during this period though he tried to join the duties but he was asked to produce fitness certificate from the office of the Chief Medical Officer but the workman/respondent No. 3 could not get the certificate and ultimately he submitted his joining on 29.03.1991 but he was not allowed to join and he was informed that his services have been terminated on 18.03.1991. This being the factual position, workman/respondent No. 3 has also relied upon the case of M/s. Scooters India Ltd. Vs. M. Mohammad Yaqub and Another, , wherein invoking a similar provision by Scooters India Ltd. a person who remained absent for 10 consecutive days his services terminated was held to be in violation of natural justice and fairplay and it was held that at least a show cause notice was liable to be given. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment reads as under:--

"10. Therefore, it is clear that there could not be any automatic termination of the respondent on the basis of Standing Order 9.3.12. Principles of natural justice had to be complied with.

The question which then arises is whether the principles of natural justice were followed in this case. As has been set out hereinabove, Mr. Swarup had submitted that the workman had been given an opportunity to join the duty and that he did not join duty even though repeatedly called upon to do so. It is contended that principles of natural justice have been complied with in this case. However, the material on record indicates otherwise. The Labour Court, in its Award, sets out and accepts the respondent''s case that he had not been allowed to join duty. The respondent has given evidence that even though he personally met the Chief Personnel Officer, he was still not allowed to enter the premises. The evidence is that inspite of the slip, Ext. W2, he was prevented from joining duty when he attempted to join duty. The slip Ext. W2 had been signed by the Security Inspector of the appellant. This showed that the respondent had reported for work. As against this evidence, the appellant has not led any evidence to show that the workman had not reported for duty. Even though the slip, Ext. W2 had been proved by the workman, the Security Inspector, one Mr. Shukla, was not examined by the appellant. Further, the evidence of the Senior Time Keeper of the appellant established that the workman had worked for more than 240 days within a period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the date of termination of service. This was proved by a joint inspection report, which was marked as Ext. 45/A. It was on the basis of this material and this evidence that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was retrenchment without following the provision of law. As the workman was not allowed to join duty, Standing Order 9.3.12 could not have been used for terminating his services."

In another writ petition (WPMS No. 1329 of 2005 and WPMS No. 162 of 2006) which has been decided by this Court today itself which relates to the same factory, a full fledged inquiry took place. However, in the present matter no inquiry has been held and simply a Clause of Certified Standing Orders has been invoked and the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

For this reason as well that the action of the petitioner/H.M.T. Watch Factory is violative of the principle of natural justice arid fairplay, no interference with the award of the Labour Court is being made. The writ petition is dismissed with the modification in the Award dated 28.05.2002 that under the circumstances, 50% back-wages are not liable to be given to the workman/respondent No. 3. No order as to costs.