Case: M/S. Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd Vs. Ram Bahagat

The petitioner company engaged Ram Bahagat, the respondent-workman as a Helper on 8.12.1980. On 6.11.1989, he was promoted as Operator. For the discharge of his duties against the post of Operator, he was deputed to work in the elector-plating unit of the factory. He continued to work till 12.10.1990 and thereafter absented himself without any prior information with effect from 13.10.1990. The Management waited for some days and eventually addressed a communication dated 17.10.1990 to the workman informing him that he had been absenting himself from duty with effect from 13.10.1990, without authorised leave or notice, he was advised to report back on duty within 48 hours of the receipt of the aforesaid letter and also to tender his explanation for his absence. In the letter dated 17.10.1990, he was warned that in case he failed to report for duty within the specified time, it would be presumed that he was no longer interested in serving the management and his name would be struck off from the rolls of the company under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The respondent workman did not comply with the condition stipulated in the letter dated 17.10.1990. He was informed through registered post, vide letter dated 25.10.1990, that his name had been removed from the muster rolls of the company. A perusal of the aforesaid letter shows that the aforesaid action had been taken under Clause 9(f) (ii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, in view of the fact that the respondent-workman had remained absent from duty for a period of 10 days continuously.The respondent-workman is stated to have refused to receive the registered communication dated 25.10.1990. He, however, addressed a letter dated 30.1.1991 requesting the management to take him back on duty. In the aforesaid letter, he informed the management that he had been unwell during the period of his absence. In this behalf, he also enclosed his medical certificate as also a fitness certificate. In the letter dated 30.1.1991 he made a reference of the earlier letter dated 24.10.1990 sent by him to the management, requesting for leave on medical grounds. On the same date i.e. 30.1.1991, he was informed that he had remained absent from duty without getting sanctioned leave and without any notice to the management, and that his name had been struck off from the rolls of the company under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, vide letter dated 25.10.1990. Accordingly, the request of the respondent-workman for being taken back on duty was declined.6. Having failed to persuade the management to take him back into service, the respondent-workman served a demand notice dated 29.3.1991. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the State Government made a reference of the dispute raised by the respondent-workman to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the "Labour Court).7. On the basis of the evidence produced by the respondent-workman, the Labour Court concluded that almost the whole period of alleged absence of the respondent-workman was proved to be on account of his illness and the respondent-workmans absence from duty was not intentional. Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, the Labour Court considered the validity of the order of the management on the basis of clause 9(f)(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company and held that the action of the management in terminating the services of the respondent-workman was not justified and thus ordered his reinstatement with continuity in service along with 67% back wages and being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court dated 1.2.1999, the management approached the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court's reasoning:
15. It is thus in this context one ought to read the doctrine of natural justice being an in-built requirement on the Standing Orders. Significantly, the facts depict that the respondent-workman remained absent from duty from 13th October 1990 and it is within a period of four days that a letter was sent to the workman informing him that since he was absenting himself from duty without authorised leave he was advised to report back within 48 hours and also to tender his explanation for his absence, otherwise his disinterestedness would thus be presumed. Is this in strict compliance with the Certified Standing Order - the answer possibility cannot be in the affirmative. Though however, if the letter dated 25th October, 1990 as noticed above is to be taken note of, then and in that event the same thus come within the ambit of the Certified Standing Order of 10 days continued absence - the situation however, is slightly different in the present context since the letter of 25th October is an intimation of his name being struck off the rolls of the company. It is an act; subsequent to the order of termination and if the letter of 17th October is an indication for such an order of termination the same does not come within the ambit of the Certified StandingHaving regard to the well settled principle of law as in Yadav (supra), the decision to terminate by reason of a presumption as noticed above, we cannot but lend concurrence to the conclusion of the High Court that the action is purely and surely arbitrary in nature. Arbitrariness in an anti-thesis to rule of law: equity: fair play and justice - contract of employment there may be but it cannot be devoid of the basic principles of the concept of justice. Justice oriented approach as is the present trend in Indian jurisprudence shall have to read as an in-built requirement of the basic of concept of justice, to wit, the doctrine of natural justice, fairness, equality and rule of law: The letter dated 17th October cannot be any stretch be treated to be an opportunity since it is only on the fourth day that such a letter was sent - the action of the appellant herein stands out to be devoid of any justification, neither it depicts acceptability of the doctrine of natural justice or the concept of fairness - arbitrariness is written large and we confirm the finding of the High Court as also that of the learned Trial Judge and the Tribunal as regards issue as noticed above.17. In that view of the matter, there cannot thus be any perversity or any miscarriage of justice warranting intervention of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.