LAWS(KAR)-1974-8-14

WORKMEN PSSK Vs. PEESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MANDYA

Decided On August 29, 1974
WORKMEN, PSSK Appellant
V/S
PEESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MANDYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Arts .226 & 227 directed against the award of the Dist, Judge and Ex-Officio Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mandya, made in MIS (IDA) No.4 of 1971.

(2.) The facts leading up to the petition are these: The workman Devaraju in the Pandayapura, Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd, met with an accident on 28-9-1967. He was admitted in the K.R.Hospital, Mysore. On 29-9-1967 he made a leave application asking the Management to grant ieave. He did not specify the duration for which leave was required. Apparently, the management did no,t take any action on that application. On 9-10-1967 he again made another leave application asking for three months' leave with effect from 29-9-1967. On 25-10-1967 the Management informed the workman that it has sanctioned leave without pay up to 30 days as per Standing Order No.12(c)(3) commencing from 29-9-1967 to 28-10-1967. It was made clear in that Memo that the Management was not in a position to sanction leave beyond that period as the same was not permissible under the Standing Order. It was further madia clear that if the workman remained absent even after 28-10-1967, his case would' be! dealt with as per Standing Order No.14(2). The workman could not report to duty after 28-10-1967 as he was still in the hospital. It was only on 20-11-1967 he, was discharged from the hospital with an advice to take rest for a couple of months thereafter. On 8-12-1967 the Management issued a Memo stating that the workman was treated as having left the service with effact from 29-10-1967. Thia Memo appears to have, not bjeen actually served on the workman. He, however, made an application on 27-12-1967 asking for extension of leave up to 20-1-1968. In reply to the said application, the Management issued a further Memo dt.16-1-1968 stating that the question of extension of leave did not arise a,s he had already lost his lien on the appointment held by him. It was further stated that since the workman did not turn up to duty, as directed earlier, his absence from 29-10-1967 was treated as unauthorised and he was treated as having left the service as per Standing Order No. 14(2).

(3.) On the refusal of the Management to take the workman to duty, the petitioner-Union to take up his cause, which gave rise, to an industrial dispute. The Govt by their Order dt.22-12-1970, referred the, dispute, to the Labour Court for Adjudication on the, following points: I.(a) Is the Management of Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare, Karkhana Ltd, Pandavapura (Mysore State) justified in terminating the service of the workman. Sri C.M.Devaraju, with effect from 29th Oct 1967? (b) If not, what relief is the workman entitled to?