Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Relevant Regulation 14 is quoted in the impugned award at page 3 which reads as under :

14. Extraordinary leave :

(1) Extraordinary leave shall be admissible to an employee in special circumstances when :-

(a) no other kind of leave is admissible under these regulations; or

(b) other kind of leave being admissible, the employee applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave.

(2) The period of extraordinary leave granted on any one occasion shall not exceed three months except under the following circumstances, namely :

(b) In case such leave is required for prosecuting studies, certificate to be in the interest of the Commission, the maximum period admissible shall be 24 months;

Provided that this clause shall apply only to an employee who completes not less than three years continuous service on the date of expiry of the leave of the kind due and admissible under these regulations (including extraordinary leave, if any, taken under this sub-regulation) :

Provided further that :-

(i) Every employee who is granted such leave shall execute a bond in the form at Annexure I appended to these regulations :

(3) The competent authority may, at its discretion, convert a period of absence from duty without leave into extraordinary leave.

(4) No leave salary shall be admissible during the period of extraordinary leave.

(3) Where an employee fails to resume duty on the expiry of the period of extraordinary leave if the leave granted to him is the maximum that can be granted under this regulation or where an employee who is granted a lesser amount of extraordinary leave than the maximum admissible for any period which, together with extraordinary leave so granted exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted leave under this regulation, he shall be deemed to have resigned his appointment and shall accordingly cease to be in the employment of the Commission, unless the Commission may determine otherwise, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case."

5. After quoting the said Regulation No. 14(5) as aforesaid, the Labour Court observed that the said Regulation shall operate only when an employee fails to resume duties after the expiry of the period of extraordinary leave granted to him if it is the maximum that can be granted under the regulation or in a case where the employee is granted lesser amount of extra ordinary leave than the maximum admissible but he remains absent for more than the total maximum period of extra ordinary leave admissible or less than the maximum as the ordinary leave admissible or less than the maximum as the case may be must be specifically granted to him in the first instance. In the case of the workman herein, no such extraordinary leave has been granted by the Commission. It has also observed by the tribunal that in fact, the workman herein had not applied for such extraordinary leave. After considering Regulation 14(5), the labour Court has come to the conclusion that such contention which has been raised by the Commission is an after thought contention and that no specific averment is made in the written statement and that there is no evidence to show that the Commission had passed any order regarding the workman herein as per Regulation No. 14(5) the tribunal had rejected the said contention.