LOKESH J Vs. JUGGATH PHARMA INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of the respondent when terminated from service for he alleged unauthorised absence, initiated conciliation proceedings, which, when ended in a failure report, was followed by an order of the State Government referring the industrial dispute for adjudication to the 1st Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, T.D. Act'). That reference when registered as 40/2008. Court notice through READ to the petitioner arraigned as the first party, though acknowledged, the petitioner remained absent on January 23, 2009 and on all the dates of hearing. The petitioner remained absent while the respondent-Management entered appearance, filed statement resisting the alleged claim of the petitioner that the order of termination was not just and proper. The Labour Court framed an additional issue over the validity of the domestic enquiry and answered the same in the affirmative by order dated June 16,2009. The respondent examined its witnesses and marked eight documents as Exhibits M-1 to M-8. The Labour Court having considered the material on record held the charge of unauthorised absence proved and by award dated June 29, 2009 Annexure-A, 5 rejected the reference. Hence this writ petition, by the workman.

(2.) At paragraphs 9 and 10 of the grounds to the writ petition it is stated that, it was for the Labour Court to have heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order and fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not extended to defend the case and that even if notice was served on the petitioner, it ought to have extended another opportunity by issuing a fresh notice and therefore, the proceedings before the Labour Court culminating in the order impugned is unjust.

(3.) The allegation that fair and reasonable opportunity was not extended to the petitioner is far from truth and cannot be countenanced. The order sheet dated January 23, 2009 Annexure-E of the Labour Court discloses that notice through RPAD when served on the petitioner, informing the date of hearing, the petitioner was absent though, the case was called thrice. The order in respect of further dates of hearing also discloses that the petitioner was absent. In the admitted fact that the petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court on all the dates of hearing, it is too far-fetched to contend that the Labour Court ought to have issued yet another notice to the petitioner to secure his presence in the proceedings.