TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as 'the workman'; whereas the State of Punjab, Appellant in Civil Appeal No.1168 of 2002, will be hereinafter referred to as 'the State'. FACTS : The workman herein joined the service in the Punjab Roadways, Taran Taran, in the year 1965 as a driver. It is not in dispute that he absented himself from duty from 2.5.1979 to 3.8.1979. The workman did not apply for any grant of leave. He was asked to report for duty by a registered letter dated 22.6.1979 but despite the same he did not comply with the said request. As regard his absence from duty, a notice was published in the newspapers but despite the same he did not join his duties within the time specified therein. The State, therefore, on the ground his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The workman is directed to report for duty within 30 days of the publication of the award. The State thereafter filed a writ petition questioning the said award before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 2.6.1999. The High Court by reason of its impugned judgment dated 7.12.2000 allowed the writ petition in part to the limited extent that instead and place of full back-wages, the workman was held to be entitled to 60% of the back-wages, while upholding the direction for reinstatement of the workman, stating : So far as back wages are concerned , the Labour Court awarded full back wages from the date of demand notice. However, it can be seen that the demand notice was issued on 5.3.1981. Reference was made on 25.8.1993 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the workman as is mandatorily required under Rules 5 and 8 of 1970 Rules and Rule 3.25 of 1953 Rules. It was pointed out that the State's plea of abandonment of service on the part of the workman was also found to be incorrect. According to the learned counsel, as no material was brought on records by the State to show that the workman had availed of any alternative employment, the workman was entitled to full back-wages from the date of issuance of the demand. It was argued that only because more than twelve years have elapsed from the date of the demand and the date of reference, it cannot be said that delay was attributable to the workman as the delay, if any, in making the reference was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the newspapers. While directing grant of back-wages, the Labour Court was required to consider the totality of the circumstance. The conduct of the workman had also an important role to play. The services of the workman were terminated on 3.8.1979. He merely asked for his reinstatement in service on or about 5.3.1981. There is nothing on record to show as to when the industrial dispute was raised. Even if he had raised an industrial dispute in 1981, it does not stand to any reason as to why he kept mum till the reference was made in the year 1993. We may notice that in Uptron India Ltd. vs. Shammi Bhan and Another [(1998) 6 SCC 538], the question as to whether a statute or a Sanding Oder having the force of law containing the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein. In paragraph 12 of the judgment it was categorically held that the records therein indicated that no opportunity had been granted to the workman to join his duty. This Court in different decisions applied the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. Indisputably, the principles of natural justice may have to be complied with having regard to the conditions of service governed by the rules framed in terms of proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. But the said principle cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant fact situation. [See Punjab and Sind Bank and Others Vs. Sakattar Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid findings, this Court vacated the stay of holding the departmental proceeding as against the Respondent No.1 therein. In this case, as despite several opportunities the workman did not join his duties at all, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court and the High Court committed a manifest error in granting back-wages in his favour. As noticed hereinbefore, the letter of termination issued to the workman itself suggests that such an opportunity had been granted. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even if it is assumed that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was obligatory on the part of the State to comply with Rules 5 and 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, the wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
