It was further observed that the Tribunal had also recorded that the management did number pass any order on the leave application and, therefore, it had to be implied that leave had been sanctioned.
But it was numbered that by virtue of a stay order passed in a writ petition, the proceedings before the Tribunal had remained stayed for about six years and, therefore, the respondent was number entitled to back wages for the whole period, but was entitled from 28.1.1998 i.e. from the date of the award.
The award was passed in the reference made by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, referring the following dispute for adjudication of the Tribunal Whether the action of the management of New India Assurance Company Limited in removing Sri Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava, typist, Allahabad from service w.e.f.
If number to what relief the companycerned workman is entitled?
The same was challenged before the High Court.
15.6.1985, is legal and justified?
Accordingly, the order of removal was set aside and order was passed directing reinstatement with full back wages and companysequential benefits including companytinuity of service.
By the impugned order, the High Court observed that though the respondent had remained absent, his absence with leave stood companydoned by virtue of the letter dated 3.8.1984 issued by the Branch Manager of the appellant Company by which the respondent was called back to work.
Several applications for leave were made but they were number dealt with by the appellant and, therefore, the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in directing reinstatement.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed and after companypletion of enquiry and on companysideration of the enquiry report, the respondent was removed from service by order dated 15.6.1985.
The respondent was working as a permanent typist at the Allahabad branch of the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Alleging that he had unauthorizedly remained absent for more than 600 days, a charge sheet was issued.
The companytroversy lies within a very narrow companypass.
Thereafter, a dispute was raised and the reference was made, as numbered above.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5213 OF 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the companyrectness of the Award dated 28.1.1998 passed in Industrial Dispute No.
111 of 1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in short, the Tribunal .
The Tribunal came to hold that during the period in question, i.e., 25.9.1982 to 5.6.1984, the respondent was suffering from Tuberculosis and he had applied for medical leave and since the management did number pass any order on his leave applications, the companycerned workman cannot be held responsible and, therefore, he was number absent unauthorizedly from duty.
