Raj Ballava Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—Seeking quashing of order dated 23.8.2002 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 65 of 1988, whereby his claim for payment of the suspension allowances between the period 15.7.1986 to 30.11.1988, was rejected, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The brief facts appearing from the writ petition are that, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15.7.1986. The petitioner filed his show-cause reply on 17.7.1986. The petitioner moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1261 of 1988 (R), which was disposed of on 23.9.1988 giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the Labour Court.

The petitioner filed M.J. Case No. 65 of 1988 and by the impugned order dated 23.8.2002, the learned Labour Court has held that the petitioner would be entitled to get suspension allowances only for the days he got his attendance marked in the office. Aggrieved by order dated 23.8.2002, the petitioner has approached this Court

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents resisting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was a criminal case filed against the petitioner and to avoid his arrest, the petitioner was absconding and not attending his duty. It has further been stated that in view of the seriousness of the offence and the fact that he was finally dismissed from the service, no interference is required in this matter by this Court.

Heard Counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the documents on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of Clause 27.2.2002 of the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishment under BCCL, the petitioner was prohibited from entering the work premises and in that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court is erroneous.

As against this, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and contended that in view of the provisions contained in 27.2.2004 of the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishments under BCCL, the petitioner was required to submit a written declaration that he was not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation, which he did not submit and therefore, the impugned order was passed against him.

Clauses 27.2.2002 and 27.2.2004 of the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishments under BCCL are quoted below:

Clause 27.2.2002 - During tine period of his suspension, the workman shall not enter the work premises except with the permission of the management, nor shall he leave station without tine permission of the management

Clause 27.2.2004 - The payment of subsistence allowance will be subject to a written declaration by the workman that he is not engaged in any other employment business, profession or vocation.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.8.2002 would reveal that the learned Labour Court has only considered the alleged abscondence of the petitioner from the work place and it appears that the provision contained in Clause 27.2.2002 of the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishments under BCCL, has been overlooked by the learned Labour Court I further find that there is no findings recorded by the Labour Court with respect to written declaration to be submitted by the petitioner in terms of clause 27.2.2004 of the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishments under BCCL.

The only fact which had a bearing in deciding the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order of the Labour Court, appears to be the alleged abscondence of the petitioner from the work place. The provisions contained in clause 27.2.2002 of the Certified Standing Orders clearly prohibited the workmen from entering the work place. The registration of the criminal case would not raise a presumption that the petitioner was absconding. In this view of the matter, the alleged abscondence of the petitioner even if true, would have no bearing on the entitlement of the petitioner for suspension allowances. On consideration of the materials available on record, I find that the impugned order of the teamed Labour Court is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.8.2002 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to make payment of the suspension allowances to the petitioner for the period 15.7.1986 to 30.11.1988, subject to the deduction of the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner.