An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal by an order dated 3.08.2000.
Thus, act of Sri Yadav, i.e., remaining absent companytinuously from his duty without prior information or permission in unauthorized manner, is grave misconduct companytrary to Rule 3 and of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965, which has been enforced by the Board vide its Notification No.
Charges No.
Respondent was, however, exonerated of Charge No.
01 04/CMO/224, Dated 20.0.91 sic of Chief Medical Officer, M.P.E.B., but neither he presented himself on duty number thought it necessary to reply the letter of Chief Medical Officer.
Dr. Yadav was informed to be present on his duty vide Letter No.
Charge No.
1 Officiating on the abovesaid responsible post, Sri S.K. Yadav, exercising irresponsible behaviour, remained absent w.e.f.
Charge No.
02 07/one Estd./53 Dated 11.1.94 that you will work under the guidance of Section Officer, but it was found that you were number found on your allotted work in the office and it was also found that you remained absent from office, putting your signature on Attendance Register from 10.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on regular basis, violating all the Office Directions.
In the meanwhile, he filed several representations as regards the decision of the management to transfer him in the post of Office Assistant Grade II in the Head Office upon closure of the Homeopathic Dispensary.
11.9.91 from his duty without permission of his Senior Officer and without giving written or oral information in unauthorized manner.
However, the Dispensary was closed.
The said application was allowed in terms of an award dated 29.05.1999, whereby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court passed the following award Hence, allowing the applicants application, disputed order dated 21.9.96 passed by the office of Opposite Parties, on account of being illegal and unjust, I do reject the same and Opposite Parties are being directed that disputed order dated 21.9.96 on account of being rejected, applicant is being declared entitled for receiving all his interests and profits of his earlier post before 21.9.96 from the Opposite Parties.
01 01 Five /1620/81/98/68 dated 21.4.82, has made himself eligible, violating the above provisions for serious disciplinary action.
1 and 2 having been proved, a penalty of reduction of pay to its minimum and stoppage of increments for a period of five years was passed against him.
The Labour Court while adjudicating on such a companyplaint is entitled to determine the question relevant to the dispute in terms of Section 61 1 A a and 61 2 of the Act, which reads as under Powers of Labour Court 1 In addition to powers companyferred under other provisions of this Act, a Labour Court shall have power to A decide a dispute regarding which application has been made to it under sub section 3 of Section 31 of the Act For the purposes of deciding a dispute under paragraphs A and B of sub section 1 it shall be lawful for the Labour Court to determine questions of fact relevant to the dispute.
975 of 2001.
A chargesheet was issued to him on or about 12.07.1994 in respect of the following charges Charge No.
Sri S.K. Yadav on 01.12.93 in the afternoon submitted information of his being present in the office of undersigned, but he did number produce any clarification for his undisciplined action.
Thereafter, Sri S.K. Yadav was found absent from his duty from 7.12.93 without any prior information and permission.
3 On 1.12.93 in spite of being present on duty, Sri Yadav remained disinterested towards the works of Electricity Board.
He protested thereagainst.
In the said award, the learned Labour Court discussed in details about the companyrectness or otherwise of the allegations made against the respondent by the department as also the report of the Inquiry Officer.
Whether respondent should have been granted back wages in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22.06.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.
It is alleged that he remained unauthorisedly absent on and from 10.09.1991 upto 1.12.1993.
Even charge of all the homeopathic medicines and companymodities of Dispensary which was under you, without handing over the charge to anybody else, kept the keys with you in unauthorized manner.
S/111/G 213, dated 28.2.68 on its employees and under part 12/1/P of Standard Standing Order.
Respondent filed an application under Section 31 3 read with Section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 for short the Act before the Labour Court.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
He went of leave with effect from 10.09.1991.
He was asked to join the Head office as Office Assistant Grade II.
Appellants are, thus, before us.
He was appointed as a Homeopathic Assistant in the Homeopathic Dispensary which used to be run by the appellant.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Respondent herein is a Homeopathic Doctor.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been dismissed.
1782 dated 16.11.1993.
02 07/one Estd.
Sri Yadav was informed vide this office letter No.
A writ petition was preferred thereagainst.
Thus, Sri S.K. Yadav under provisions of P. Civil Service Rules and under para number 24 2 of provisions of M.P. Civil Services Leave Rules Classification and Appeal Rules, 1966 which has been admitted by the Board vide its Notification No.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated in respect of the aforementioned charges.
