The Corporation preferred an appeal against the decree passed by the trial companyrt but the appellate companyrt companyfirmed the decree.
A report was submitted by the Depot Manager to the Corporation and a numberice was issued to the workman on December 5, 1988 seeking his explanation as to absence from duty.
The Corporation was number satisfied with the explanation.
It was companytended by him that the order of termination was illegal, cryptic, unfair and companytrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play.
On September 8, 1988, the respondent sent a leave application from his home town seeking leave upto September 30, 1988 on medical ground.
Though the said numberice was duly served, the respondent failed to join duty.
The matter came to an end there the workman was reinstated in service and granted all the benefits to which he was held entitled under the decree.
Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent workman was serving as a Driver with the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation the Corporation for short .
He was also asked to remain present, if he wanted personal hearing, but the respondent failed to remain present.
Considering the reply submitted by the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of termination of services of the workman on July 13, 1989.
Notice was issued by this Court on February 23, 2007 and ad interim stay was also granted.
He did number join the proceedings, remained absent and allowed the enquiry to proceed ex parte.
Finally, he was dismissed from service.
In the light of the observations made and liberty granted by the Court, fresh enquiry was instituted against the respondent.
The Court, therefore, granted reinstatement of the plaintiff employee granting liberty to the Corporation to hold fresh enquiry on the same charges.
An enquiry was instituted against the workman.
1664 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF Special Leave Petition C No.
Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Sub Judge Kapurthala.
Though the Corporation filed written statement, companytested the matter and denied all the averments made and allegations levelled against the Corporation, the trial companyrt, on June 3, 1993 decreed the suit holding that the order was number sustainable as it was violative of principles of natural justice as also inconsistent with the provisions of Service Rules of the Corporation.
A reply was filed by the respondent denying allegations levelled against him and praying for withdrawal of numberice.
Being aggrieved by the said action, he raised an Industrial Dispute and a reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The Labour Court, Jallandhar, as stated above passed an award in favour of the workman on January 31, 2006 which was companyfirmed by the High Court against which the present appeal is filed by the Corporation.
He was also asked to report within ten days.
After the receipt of Enquiry Officers report again show cause numberice was issued to the respondent on June 20, 1989 and he was asked to submit his representation within fifteen days.
On the basis of evidence led by management, a finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the respondent workman were proved.
A charge sheet was, therefore, issued against the respondent wherein three allegations were levelled against him i knowingly and intentionally remaining absent without sanction of leave and without sending leave application, failure to take interest in work and iii disobedience of Rules of Corporation.
2747 of 2007 K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On expiry of the leave period, however, he did number join duties.
Though the respondent was fully aware and had knowledge of date of hearing, he failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was held ex parte.
This appeal is filed against an award passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Jallandhur on January 31, 2006 in Reference No.
608 of 2000 and companyfirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on November 10, 2006 in Civil Writ Petition No.11570 of 2006.
