# Mita India Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 397
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-08
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15344 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mita-india-pvt-ltd-ghaziabad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48537
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Labour Law - principles of natural
justice in labour jurisprudence - applied
to ensure transparency and fairness in the
employer and employee dealings which in
turn
promote
industrial
peace

-
Distinction between - abandonment of
service & misconduct of unauthorized
absence from duty - abandonment of
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
service and termination of service -
standing order. (Para - 18,19,27)

Employee long absent - not interested in
rejoining his duties - Petitioner employer made
an offer to workman - join on an equivalent
post at its unit in Devas - workman abandoned
his service - finding of labour court - services of
respondent workman were terminated - without
holding a disciplinary enquiry. (Para -
2,29,32)

HELD:- Material before employer was credible
and conclusions of employer were reasonable .
Employer adopted a just and lawful procedure
before
ending
the
employer
employee
relationship on grounds of abandonment of
service. labour court neglected to consider the
adherence of the employer to Standing Order
No.21 . No requirement of a regular domestic
enquiry. Non application of mind by labour
court. Findings of labour court are perverse and
illegal. Award liable to be set aside and is set
aside. (Para - 28,30,31)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Mita India Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397

भवसरा के िागोूं (1-5) व वस्तु (6) एवूं (7)
में कोई रासायभनक भवष नहीूं पाया गया।"

18. According to learned Standing
Counsel the testing of the viscera report
itself shows that the venom which was
found in the blood of the deceased was
chemical poison only.

19. Learned Standing Counsel when
confronted
with
the
policy
decision/clarification dated 08.07.2021 as
referred to above could not dispute the
same and had made a submission at bar that
now in view of the policy decision dated
08.07.2021 the requirement of obtaining
viscera report for the grant of monitory
compensation/ex-gratia payment referable
to death on account of snake bite stands
dispensed with and what is to be seen is the
fact that the panchnama as well as post
mortem has been conducted or not.

20. Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned
Standing Counsel has thus argued that in
view of the letter of the Kanoongo
addressed to the petitioner now the
petitioner's claim will be processed and the
same will not be denied or the benefits
would not be denuded on the ground that
the viscera report is either not available or
not in favour of the petitioner.

21. Be that as it may be, in view of
the arguments so sought to be advanced
by the rival parties and further the fact
that the learned Standing Counsel has not
disputed
the
existence
and
the
applications
of
the
policy
decision/clarification dated 08.07.2021
that the requirement of obtaining viscera
report stands dispensed with, the present
writ petition is being allowed in the
following terms:-

(A) Petitioner within a period of
one month from today shall prefer a
representation before the respondent no.2,
District Magistrate, Etah alongwith the
certified copy of the order so passed today
annexing with complete documents in
support of his claim.

(B) The respondent no.2, District
Magistrate,
Etah,
on
receipt
of
the
representation
so
preferred
by
the
petitioner, shall decide the claim of the
petitioner within a further period of one
month for grant of compensation/ex-gratia
payment to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-
without insisting for the requirement of
viscera report in the light of the observation
made herein above.
----------
(2022)05ILR A397
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 15344 of 2019

Mita India Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Diptiman Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava

(A) Labour Law - principles of natural
justice in labour jurisprudence - applied
to ensure transparency and fairness in the
employer and employee dealings which in
turn
promote
industrial
peace

-
Distinction between - abandonment of
service & misconduct of unauthorized
absence from duty - abandonment of
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
service and termination of service -
standing order. (Para - 18,19,27)

Employee long absent - not interested in
rejoining his duties - Petitioner employer made
an offer to workman - join on an equivalent
post at its unit in Devas - workman abandoned
his service - finding of labour court - services of
respondent workman were terminated - without
holding a disciplinary enquiry. (Para -
2,29,32)

HELD:- Material before employer was credible
and conclusions of employer were reasonable .
Employer adopted a just and lawful procedure
before
ending
the
employer
employee
relationship on grounds of abandonment of
service. labour court neglected to consider the
adherence of the employer to Standing Order
No.21 . No requirement of a regular domestic
enquiry. Non application of mind by labour
court. Findings of labour court are perverse and
illegal. Award liable to be set aside and is set
aside. (Para - 28,30,31)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. H.P.C. Vs Purnendu Chakrobarty , 1996 (11)
SCC 404

2. Syndicate Bank Vs General Secretary,
Syndicate Bank Staff Association & anr. , (2000)
5 SCC 765

3. Viveka Nand Sethi Vs Chairman, J & K Bank
Ltd. & ors. , 2005 (5) SCC 337

4. Buckingham & Carnatic C. Ltd. Vs Venkatiah ,
1964 AIR SC 1272

5. Moti Vs St. of U.P , 2019 (9) ADJ 24

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By the impugned award dated
16.01.2019 the labour court has allowed the
industrial reference in favour of the
workman by holding that the termination of
the respondent workman's services on
08.09.2011 were illegal. Consequential
reliefs of reinstatement with full backwages
have also been granted.

2. The labour court in the impugned
award has found that the services of
respondent
workman
were
terminated
without holding a disciplinary enquiry.
Various communications sent by the
employer to the workman to rejoin duties
were disbelieved on the foot that they do
not reflect a bona fide intent to recall the
workman to duty.

3. Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the evidence in
the record established that the workman was
given ample opportunity to rejoin his duties
but he failed to do so. The workman had
abandoned his service. Petitioner had rightly
invoked the applicable standing order holding
the field which was not considered by the
labour court. No departmental enquiry was
liable to held in the facts of this case and the
relevant standing orders. The labour court
returned perverse findings on the evidence
lead by the petitioner.

4. Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for respondent workman contends
that the services of the workman were
terminated without enquiry. The respondent
workman had not abandoned his service. He
made several efforts to rejoin his duties but
was not allowed to do so by the employer.
The termination of the respondent workman
was in violation of principles of natural
justice was rightly set aside by the court
below.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

6. Briefly put the facts are these. The
respondent workman had stopped attending
5 All. Mita India Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
office after an incident in the establishment.
The employer sent communications asking
the workman to rejoin duties, but to no
avail. The petitioner employer inferred
abandonment of duties by the workman and
after invoking the relevant standing order
struck him off the roles of employees.

7. The questions which arise for
consideration are:

(a) What constitutes abandonment
of service by a workman?

(b) Whether abandonment of
service can be established against a
workman only after holding a regular
domestic enquiry?

8. Abandonment of service is an act
where the employer finds that a workman
by prolonged and unauthorized absence
from duty has abandoned his service. The
employer employee relationship stands
severed since the workman has failed to
rejoin duties despite communications by
the employer to do so. The inference of the
employer regarding abandonment of duty
by the employee has to be deduced from
the conduct of the employee and requires to
be supported by credible materials in the
record.

9. The prerequisite conditions for
drawing an inference that the workman has
abandoned his duties are these. The
workman
is
continuously
and
unauthorizedly absent from duties. The
period of continuous absence may vary
from case to case. However it cannot be an
inordinately short period. The period of
such absence may also be prescribed in the
standing order. Secondly the employer
should recall the workman and give him an
opportunity to resume his duties. Even after
receipt
of
such
communications
the
workman fails to rejoin duties. Thirdly,
continuance of such employee on the rolls
would not be in the best interest of the
establishment. Upon satisfaction of the said
conditions precedent the employer may
conclude that the employee has abandoned
his duties. The employer can then strike the
employee off the roles of the establishment
and
sever
the
employer
employee
relationship. In such cases a regular
domestic enquiry is not required. However,
there is no abandonment of duties if the
workman was prevented by the employer
from joining his duties.

10. It needs to be seen whether in the
facts of this case the aforesaid ingredients
are established or not.

11. It is admitted between the parties
that on 07.09.2011 the workman had an
altercation with another employee one
Ganesh Yadav and had allegedly assaulted
the latter. The said Ganesh Yadav had also
registered FIR against the workman.
Thereafter w.e.f. 08.09.2011 the workman
did not attend his duties and continuously
remained absent. The employer sent
various communications to the workman on
29.03.2012 and 25.04.2012 asking him to
rejoin
his
duties.
The
aforesaid
communications have been marked as
exhibits and were proved by the petitioner
before the labour court. The workman had
received the said communications. The
aforesaid letters clearly disclose the efforts
of employer to recall the workman and
enable him to rejoin his duties. But the
same were disbelieved by the labour court
solely on the foot that they do not reflect
bona fide intent. I am afraid the finding is
perverse. The contents of the aforesaid
letters duly proved before the labour court
establish the bonafide intention of an
overindulgent employer recalling the long
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
absent employee and notice him to rejoin
duties. Admittedly the respondent workman
did
not
respond
to
the
aforesaid
communications and failed to rejoin his
duties despite notice. He was not prevented
by the employer from joining his duty. The
conduct of the employer cannot be faulted.

12. Several other corroborative
evidences support the conclusion of the
employer in regard to the abandonment by
the workman and the decision made to
strike the workman off the rolls. The
incident on 07.09.2011 is admitted between
the parties. The respondent workman had
also tendered a resignation letter after the
incident.
The
resignation
letter
was
disbelieved by the labour court in a
perverse manner. The labour court ought to
have
examined
and
compared
the
signatures
of
the
workman
on
contemporaneous documents with that on
the resignation letter. It failed to do so. It is
well established that the workman was
continuously
absent
from
duty
from
08.09.2011 till the standing order was
invoked against him in the aftermath of the
communication dated 25.04.2012.

13. The workman had on his part
submitted that he had made various
attempts to rejoin duties but was denied
entry by the employer. The pleadings and
evidences tendered by the workman do not
support his case. The workman on his own
admission made the first communication to
rejoin
duties
highly
belatedly
on
27.03.2012.

14. The said communication of the
workman only demonstrates that the
absence of the workman for prolonged
period with effect from 08.09.2011 was
completely unjustified. The communication
dated 27.03.2012 of the workman and his
statement before the labour court are selfserving and devoid of bonafide intentions.
They are an afterthought and only intended
to post fact justify the indefensible conduct
of the workman. The witness introduced by
the workman in his support was his real
brother who merely reiterated the stand of
the respondent workman. The witness does
not improve the credit of the workman's
case. No material in the record has been
brought to the notice of the Court that the
workman had made genuine efforts to
rejoin his duties but was prevented by the
employer.

15. The conditions precedent for
inferring of abandonment of service were
thus fully satisfied.

16. In light of the above facts the
employer lawfully invoked clause 21 of the
certified
standing
order
against
the
workman and legitimately inferred that the
workman had abandoned his service. The
standing order are extracted hereunder:

"21)
ABANDONMENT
OF
EMPLOYMENT

In the event of a workman
remaining
absent
from
duty
without
permission, continuously for a period of 8
days including weekly holidays & other
holidays during the period, he shall be
deemed to have voluntary abandoned his
service and accordingly his name shall be
struck off from the Muster Rolls of the
company"

17. The services of the workman were
terminated in adherence to the standing
order.

18. There is a distinction between the
abandonment of services and unauthorized
absence from duty which is a misconduct.
5 All. Mita India Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
401
In the latter case the employee/workman is
charged with unauthorised absence from
duty and the employer has to hold a
domestic enquiry. However when the
conditions prerequisite for finding that the
workman had abandoned his service are
established no such enquiry is necessary.
Principles of natural justice cannot be cast
in a straight jacket formula and vary from
case to case. The principles of natural
justice in labour jurisprudence are applied
to ensure transparency and fairness in the
employer and employee dealings which in
turn promote industrial peace.

19. The labour court erred in law by
failing to observe the distinction between
abandonment of service and the misconduct
of unauthorised absence from duty. The
labour court in the impugned award
illegally found for the workman of the
solely on footing that no domestic enquiry
was held. This was case of abandonment of
service and did not warrant a regular
domestic enquiry.

20. At this stage it would be apposite
to fortify the narrative with authorities in
point.

21. The clause in service conditions
which provided for loss of lien of an
employee on his post for remaining
unauthorizedly absent for more than 8
days arose for consideration before the
Supreme Court in Hindustan Paper
Corporation
Vs.
Purnendu
Chakrobarty 1 and others. In the facts of
the aforesaid case the workman remained
absent unauthorizedly for more than 8
consecutive days.

22. The application for grant of
medical leave submitted by the workman
were not supported by medical certificate
and hence his leave was not sanctioned.
The workman was noticed as to why the
period be not treated as one unauthorized
absence. The reply of the workman was
found to be bald and Rule 23 (vi) E was
invoked out against him.

23. Negating the argument that the
notice by the employer did not fulfil the
requirements of natural justice, it was held
in Hindustan Paper Corporation (supra)
as under :

"15. We have extracted Rule 23 in
full.
The
explanation
to
the
Rule
specifically
states
that
certain
items
enumerated thereunder shall not be treated
as a penalty at all within the meaning of
Rule 23. For our case the relevant subclause is (vi) (E) which says that
proceeding on leave without prior sanction
and remaining unauthorizedly absent for
more than 8 consecutive days; and/ or
subsequently extended for more than 8
consecutive days; and/ or overstaying his
sanctioned
leave
beyond
the
period
originally granted or subsequently extended
for more than 8 consecutive days would
result in loss of lien of the appointment of
the employee. In this case we have seen
that the first respondent had proceeded on
leave without prior sanction and remained
unauthorisedly absent for more than 6
months consecutively which obliged the
appellant-Corporation
to
issue
communication tot he first respondent
calling upon him to explain. Unfortunately,
the first respondent, for reasons best known
to him, has not availed himself of the
opportunity as seen earlier but replied in
half-hearted way which resulted in the
impugned order. Therefore, under the
circumstances, it cannot be said that the
principles of natural justice have not been
complied
with
or
the
circumstances
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
required any enquiry as contemplated under
Rule 25."

24. The requirement of holding
regular departmental enquiry in case of a
workman who had absented himself from
duties for a period of more than 30 days
and failed to give sufficient explanation
despite being noticed was examined in
Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary,
Syndicate Bank Staff Association and
another2. Upholding the validity of the
action of the Bank in applying the clause
16 of the bipartite statement by noticing the
employee
and
not
holding
regular
departmental enquiry, the position of law
was propounded thus:

"14. In the present case action
was taken by the Bank under Clause 16 of
the Bipartite Settlement. It is not disputed
that Dayananda absented himself from the
work for a period of 90 or more
consecutive days. It was thereafter that the
Bank served a notice on him calling upon
to report for duty within 30 days of the
notice standing therein the grounds for the
Bank to come to the conclusion that
Dayananda had no intention of joining
duties. Dayananda did not respond to the
notice at all. On the expiry of the notice
period Bank passed orders that Dayananda
had voluntarily retired from the service of
the Bank.

17. Bank
has
followed
the
requirements of Clause 16 of the Bipartite
Settlement. It rightly held that Dayananda
has voluntarily retired from the service of
the Bank. Under these circumstances it was
not necessary for the bank to hold any
inquiry before passing the order. An inquiry
would have been necessary if Dayananda
had submitted his explanation which was
not acceptable to the Bank or contended
that he did not report for duty but was not
allowed to join by the Bank. Nothing of the
like has happened here. Assuming for a
moment that inquiry was necessitated,
evidence led before the Tribunal clearly
showed that notice was given to Dayananda
and it is he who defaulted and offered no
explanation of his absence from duty and
did not report for duty within 30 days of the
notice as required in Clause 16 of the
Bipartite Settlement.

25. Application of the bipartite
settlement of the Bank when a workman
absented himself from duty was in issue in
Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J & K
Bank Ltd and Others3. The need for a fullfledged departmental enquiry was waived,
in the wake of service of notice and
inadequate reply of the workman by
holding:

"14. The bipartite settlement is
clear and unambiguous. It should be given
a literal meaning. A bare perusal of the said
settlement would show that on receipt of a
notice
contemplated
thereunder,
the
workman must either: (1) report for duties
within thirty days;(2) given his explanation
for hi absence satisfying the management
that he has not taken any employment or
avocation; and (3) show that he has no
intention of not joining the duties. It is,
thus, only when the workman concerned
does not join his duties within thirty days
or fails to file a satisfactory explanation, as
referred to hereinbefore, the legal fiction
shall come into force. In the instant case
except for asking for grant of medical
leave, he did not submit any explanation
for his absence satisfying the management
that he has not taken up any other
employment or avocation and that he has
not intention of not joining his duties.

17.
Mere
sending
of
an
application for grant of leave much after
5 All. Mita India Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
403
the period of leave was over as also the
date of resuming duties cannot be said to be
a bonafide act on the part of workman. The
Bank, as noticed hereinbefore, in response
to the lawyer's notice categorically stated
that the workman had been carrying on
some business elsewhere.

18.
We
cannot
accept
the
submission of Mr. Mathur that only
because on a later date an application for
grant of medical leave was filed, the same
ipso facto would put an embargo on the
exercise of the jurisdiction of the bank from
invoking clause (2) of the bipartite
settlement.

19. It may be true that in a case of
this nature, the principles of natural justice
where required to be complied wit but the
same would not mean that a full-fledged
departmental proceeding was required to be
initiated. A limited enquiry as to whether
the employee concerned had sufficient
explanation for not reporting to duties after
the period of leave had expired or failure
on his part on being asked to do so, in our
considered view, amounts to sufficient
compliance of the requirement of the
principles of natural justice."

26. A similarly worded standing order
regarding abandonment of service and need
for holding a domestic enquiry was
interpreted by the Supreme Court in
Buckingham and Carnatic C. Ltd Vs.
Venkatiah4:

"5. .......Let us first examine
Standing Order No. 8(ii) before proceeding
any further. The said Standing Order reads
thus:

"Absent without Leave : Any
employee who absents himself for eight
consecutive working days without leave
shall be deemed to have left the Company's
service without notice thereby terminating
his contract of service. If he gives an
explanation to the satisfaction of the
management,
the
absence
shall
be
converted into leave without pay or
dearness allowance.

Any
employee
leaving
the
Company's service in this manner shall
have no claim for re-employment in the
Mills.

But if the absence is proved to the
satisfaction of the Management to be one
due to sickness, then such absence shall be
converted into medical leave for each
period as the employee is eligible with the
permissible allowances."

This Standing Order is a part of
the certified Standing Order with had been
revised by an arbitration award between the
parties in 1957. The relevant clause clearly
means that if an employee falls within the
mischief of its first part, it follows that the
defaulting employee has terminated his
contract of service. The first provision in
clause (ii) proceeds on the basis that
absence for eight consecutive days without
leave will lead to the inference that the
absentee workman intended to terminate
his contract of service. The certified
Standing Orders represent the relevant
terms and conditions of service in a
statutory form and they are binding on the
parties at least as much, if not more, as
private contracts embodying similar terms
and conditions of service. It is true that
under common law an inference that an
employee has abandoned or relinquished
service is not easily drawn unless from the
length
of
absence
and
from
other
surrounding circumstances an inference to
that effect can be legitimately drawn and it
can be assumed that the employee intended
to abandon service. Abandonment or
relinquishment of service is always a
question of intention, and, normally such
an intention cannot be attributed to an
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employee without adequate evidence in that
behalf. But where parties agree upon the
terms and conditions of service and they
are included in certified Standing Orders,
the
doctrines
of
common
law
or
considerations of equity would not be
relevant. It is then a matter of construing
the relevant term itself. Therefore, the first
part of Standing Order 8(ii) inevitably leads
to the conclusion that if an employee is
absent for eight consecutive days without
leave, he is deemed to have terminated his
contract of service and thus relinquished or
abandoned his employment.

6. The latter part of this clause,
however, provides that the employee can
offer an explanation as to his absence and if
his explanation is found to be satisfactory
by the management, his absence will be
converted into leave without pay or
dearness allowance. Now, this clause is, in
substance a proviso to its first part. Before
effect is given to the inference of
relinquishment of service which arises from
the first part of the clause, an opportunity is
given to the employee to offer an
explanation and if the said explanation is
treated as satisfactory by the management,
the inference of termination of contract of
service is rebutted and the leave in question
is treated as leave without pay or dearness
allowance. This latter clause obviously
postulates that if the explanation offered by
the employee is not found to be satisfactory
by the management, the inference arising
from the first part prevails and the
employee shall be deemed to have
terminated his contract of service with the
result that the relationship of master and
servant between the parties would be held
to have come to an end. With the remaining
part of the said Standing Order we are not
concerned in this appeal.

7. It is true that absence without
leave for eight consecutive days is also
treated as misconduct under clause 13 (f) of
the Standing Orders. The said clause refers
to be said absence and habitual absence
without leave. In other words, the position
under the Standing orders appears to be that
absence without leave for more than eight
consecutive days can give rise to the
termination of the contract of service either
under Standing Order 8(ii) or may lead to
be penalties awardable for misconduct after
due enquiry is held as required by the
relevant Standing Order. The fact that the
same conduct is dealt with in two different
Standing
Order
cannot
affect
the
applicability of SO 8(ii) to the present case.
It is not as if the appellant is bound to treat
Venkatiah's
absence
as
constituting
misconduct under SO 13 (f) and proceeed
to hold an enquiry against him before
terminating his services. Dismissal for
misconduct as defined under SO 13 may
perhaps have different and more serious
consequences from the termination of
service resulting from SO 8(ii). However
that may be, if SO 8(ii) is applicable, it
would be no answer to the appellant's case
under SO 8(ii) to say that SO 13 (f) is
attracted. The position is not seriously in
dispute."

27. This Court in Moti Vs. State of
U.P5 construed the distinction between
abandonment of service and termination of
service by holdings:

"14. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner lacks
merit, Fundamental Rule 18 is applicable in
the facts of the instant case. It is not the
case of the petitioner that petitioner came to
be removed from service for overstayal of
leave until his retirement on attaining the
age of superannuation. No order was
passed
by
the
respondent
under
Fundamental Rule 18 dispensing with the
5 All. Smt. Roopam @ Jyoti Sharma & Anr. Vs. District Magistrate Lucknow & Ors.
405
services of the petitioner. In the instant
case, the petitioner abandoned his service
on his own in 1985 and thereafter, never
returned or approached the authorities to
resume duty.

15. The act of abandonment of
service was voluntary on the part of the
petitioner.
The
respondents
had
not
terminated the service of the petitioner
under the Rules, for his prolonged absence,
rather, the petitioner ceased to be in service
on his own choice in terms of Fundamental
Rule 18 and not due to any punitive action
by the employer."

28. The material before the employer
was credible and the conclusions of the
employer were reasonable. The employer
adopted a just and lawful procedure before
ending the employer employee relationship
on grounds of abandonment of service by
the latter. The labour court neglected to
consider the adherence of the employer to
Standing
Order
No.21,
which
was
applicable to the facts of this case. There
was no requirement of a regular domestic
enquiry. Non application of mind by the
labour court on these critical aspects vitiate
the impugned order. Findings of the labour
court on relevant facts are perverse as seen
earlier.

29. The employee long absent and not
interested in rejoining his duties. Indefinite
continuance of such an employee on the
rolls of the establishment will only instigate
industrial unrest and not foster industrial
peace.

30. In the wake of preceding
discussion the findings of the labour court
in the impugned award are perverse and
illegal.

31. The award dated 16.01.2019 is
liable to be set aside and is set aside.

32. Before parting one fact needs to
be recorded. The petitioner employer to
show his fairness had made an offer to the
workman to join on an equivalent post at its
unit in Devas. The post which the
respondent workman was working before
he abandoned is not vacant. Learned
counsel for the workman Shri Alok Kumar
Srivastava, on the basis of instructions
submits that the workman has declined the
aforesaid offer.

33. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A405
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 21188 of 2021

Smt. Roopam @ Jyoti Sharma & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
District Magistrate Lucknow & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vineet Kumar Chaurasia, Suresh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - The U.P. Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 - Section 5 - application for
maintenance , Section 16 - appeal, Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A/
323/504/506
,
Dowry
prohibition
Act,1961 - Section 3⁄4.