SCA/2114/1991 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2114 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= RAVJIBHAI SOMABHAI HARIJAN Versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. ========================================= Appearance : MR AR MAJMUDAR for the Petitioner MR MANISH R BHATT for the Respondent ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 04/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Manish R.Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. The learned advocates have requested this Court to dispose of the matter in view of the consensus arrived between them to the SCA/2114/1991 2/4 JUDGMENT effect that the issue raised in the petition is now concluded by various decisions of the Hon'ble the Apex Court. 3. The admitted facts are to the effect that the petitioner employee joined Gujarat Refinery in the year 1980. He has been in the habit of remaining unauthorizedly absent from time to time. For the period 1983 up to 10.06.1989, he remained absent as follows:- Year No. of days available for Days actually worked Total days absent 1983 365 227 66 1984 365 248 45 1985 365 166 127 1986 365 172 121 1987 366 138 155 1988 366 230 63 1989 161 74 87 He absented from duty with effect from 22.04.1989 without any permission or intimation. Though under Clause 14 of the certified standing orders which is reproduced in paragraph 3 of the affidavit in reply filed by Mr.B.G.Patel, no notice of intimation was required to be given to the absenting employee and an opportunity is available to the employee under the said clause to return except on medical grounds within 8 days with the expiry of the leave and explain to the satisfaction of the General Manager or any other officer authorized by him his inability to return on the termination SCA/2114/1991 3/4 JUDGMENT of his leave, the employer issued notice on 12.05.1989 (Annexure-2 page 21) advising the petitioner employee to report for duty immediately in any case by 19.05.1989 with a satisfactory explanation for his absence. This letter was sent by Registered Post A.D. By letter dated 26.05.1991, again sent by Registered Post A.D., the employee was advised to report for duty immediately with the satisfactory explanation for his absence (page 22). He was advised that in case he did not report for duty by 06.06.1989 with a satisfactory explanation, he will be deemed to have list his lien on his appointment in the Corporation. Both these letters sent by Registered Post A.D. were refused to be accepted and therefore, it was taken as good service. As the employee did not obtain any leave and absented from 22.04.1989 and did not report for duty despite opportunity nor explained the cause of his absence, under Registered Post A.D. letter dated 10.06.1989 (Annexure-3 page 23), the petitioner employee was advised that he is deemed to have lost his lien on the post by his own action in terms of clause 14 of the Standing Orders and his name is struck off from the roll of the Corporation with effect from 10.06.1989. 4. Clause 14 provides for opportunity to the employee of returning for explaining way he remained absent. This clause thus provides for inbuilt opportunity to the employee. Despite this opportunity by two Registered Post A.D. letters being given to the employee to return or explain why he SCA/2114/1991 4/4 JUDGMENT remained absent, as the employee done neither, he is deemed to have lost his lien by his own action. He has abandoned the service. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner admits that the petitioner was aware of the aforesaid notices issued by the respondent. 6. Both the learned advocates agree that on the above fact situation, the issue is now concluded by the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court:- I. AIR 2000 SC 2198 II. (2001) 1 SCC 214 III.(1996) 11 SC 404 IV.2008 AIR SCW 1629 V. 2001 (3) GLR 2025 VI.2001 LLR 155 7. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. (RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) *Shitole