This appeal by ' the workman is directed against the decision of the learned Vlth Labour Court, Hyderabad, directing the re-instatement in service of the appellant workman but denying him back benefits on the ground that with effect from 21st April, 1982 he himself had discontinued performing his duties without obtaining prior, permission of and without submitting a Medical Certificate to the respondent establishment.
2. The admitted facts of this case are that the appellant was employed in the respondent establishment as fitter-cone-winder. It is the case of the appellant that after performing his duties in the respondent establish--ment on 20th April, 1982, he fell ill and accordingly on 22nd April, 1982, he submitted an application for leave. In the leave application, no period for which the leave was requested was stated and it was merely indicated that the appellant' will resume his duties as and when he recovers from his ailment and is fit to resume his duties, The appellant is said to have reported for duty on 13th May, 1982, but he was not taken on duty and was verbally informed that his services have been terminated on account of his unauthorized absence from duties. According to the respondent establishment, the appellant was absent from his duties without leave from 21st April, 1982, and as further the services of the appellant had become surplus to the require--ments of the respondent establishment, his services were terminated vide its order, dated 2nd May, 1982, and this order was communicated. To him by post, under certificate of posting. The appellant denied having received the letter of termination of his services and the learned Labour Court has held that it has not been established that 'the said letter of termination of services had in fact been delivered to or served upon the appellant.
3. In the instant case, acre is no evidence to indicate that sick leave or any other type of leave in fact was due to the appellant.-- Further, it is an admitted position that the leave requested for by the appellant was not granted by the respondent establishment. It is true that the non-grant of leave to him was not communicated to him but Standing Order 8 provides for the communication of refusal to grant leave only in those cases where such refusal would reach the workman concerned well in. Time. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the appellant has himself sent the application for leave after he had availed of part of the leave. No duty was thus cast upon the respondent establishment under the Standing Orders to communicate to the appellant the refusal to grant the leave. It may also be pointed out that though the appellant, in his application, dated 22nd April, 1982,thad requested for grant of sick leave, no Medical Certificate was appended to the said application. 1n the circumstances, at the time that the application was submitted to the respondent establishment, there was no evidence that the appellant was sick or that by reason of his illness, he was unable to perform his duties. Another circumstance against the claim of the appellant for the grant of back benefits is that according to the respon--dent establishment the services of the appellant have become surplus and they no longer require the same. Under the Law, the respondent establishment was fully justified to terminate his services. The appellant would consider himself lucky that the learned Labour Court has taken the view that it has not been established that the orders terminating the services of the appellant were served upon him, though they were sent by post, under certificate of posting. If the service of the said orders had been held satisfactory or established; the appellant would not have been entitled even to re-instatement in service. Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, the. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to refer to any provision of law, Award or settlement which entitles the appellant to back wages. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied, taking all the facts into consideration that the learned Labour Court has rightly refused to grant back wages to the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.