SCA/2114/1991 4/ 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 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 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 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:-
AIR
2000 SC 2198
(2001)
1 SCC 214
(1996)
11 SC 404
2008
AIR SCW 1629
2001
(3) GLR 2025
2001
LLR 155
7. In
view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No costs.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)
*Shitole