IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15233 of 2001 BINDU BHUSHAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 10/4/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondent no.3. In the opinion of this Court the case of respondent no.3 as upheld in the impugned award of Labour Court was plain and simple that the removal of services of the petitioner was by way of termination simplicitor. The Labour Court infact has gone into this aspect at length in paragraph nos. 14 to 19 of the impugned award and has held that removal of services of the petitioner was not having any foundation of misconduct so as to require the fulfillment of section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This Court has also perused the termination letter and is fully satisfied that removal of services of the petitioner was not founded on any misconduct. Mr Anand Mohan Verma, counsel for the petitioner, however, would seriously 2 contend that removal of the petitioner from service was made on account of his being unauthorisedly absent from duty, without taking sanction of his leave. Such stand of Mr. Verma however is not corroborated from the discussions and findings in the impugned award. In fact nothing had been brought on the record by the petitioner before the Labour Court to establish this plea that termination of his service was based on misconduct. Mr. Verma then would contend that case of the petitioner is infact covered under section 33(1)(a) of the Act. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner cannot take any such plea contrary to his earlier stand taken inasmuch as it was his specific case before the Labour Court that his removal from service was in violation of section 33 (1)(b) of the Act and that is how whole question was gone into and decided by the Labour Court. This Court has also found from the order of termination of services of the petitioner that whatever amount was payable to him on account of serving the management, 3 respondent no.3, for the period of nearly five years of service, was fully paid to the petitioner as has been mentioned in the termination letter itself. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and consequently this writ application has no merit and is accordingly hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Abhay Kumar.