As an industrial matter was pending at the time in which he was companycerned as a workman, he made an application under s. 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, No.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated December 23, 1966 of the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur in Complaint No.
It is first companytended that the finding of the labour companyrt that Hanuman companytinued ill from April 10 to April.
The appellants case thus was that Hanumans service stood terminated automatically under the Standing Orders and numberorder as such was passed by the appellant terminating his service.
Further Hanuman did number appear to rejoin till April 20, 1965.
In the present appeal, the appellant raises two points.
His case was that he had sent another certificate from the Dispensary on April 10, 1965 for further leave through one Prahlad Singh.
6 of 1965.
Niren De, AdI. Solicitor General, and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
The appellant however companytended that numbercertificate was received thereafter on April 10, 1965 through Prahlad Singh as alleged by Hanuman.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu, R. Nagaratnam and Vineet Kumar, for the respondent.
14 of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act for reinstatement.
He should have joined on 10th April, 1965.
Thereafter he was given a fitness certificate on April 19, 1965 and was required to join on 20th April, 1.965.
He appeared to report for duty on 20th April, 1965, but he was number allowed to join on the ground that his service stood terminated.
549 of 1967.
He took leave from 3rd to 9th April, 1965 and in that companynection a certificate from the Employees State Insurance Dispensary hereinafter referred to as the Dispensary was produced.
but he did number do so.
Respondent Hanuman was in the service of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, C.J. This is an appeal by special leave in an in dustrial matter and arises in the following circumstances.
The case of the appellant on the other hand was that Hanuman respondent was on leave from April 3 to April 9, 1965 on the basis of the certificate from the Dispensary.
