RAJENDRA Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the award rejecting the reference. In terms of the impugned award dtd. 7/8/2018, the Labour Court rejected the reference on the premise that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 22/1/2011 to 13/5/2012.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking through the facts of the case would submit that there is no dispute relating to the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the petitioner and the petitioner was suffering from peripheral neuritis which prevented the petitioner from attending the duty. The petitioner submitted leave application to the concerned authority through an acquaintance and though the leave application has reached the concerned officer, application is not considered. The petitioner was in Mangalore undergoing treatment for the peripheral neuritis and it appears that a notice was issued to the petitioner asking for his explanation for unauthorised absence and said notice is not served on the petitioner as he was not residing in the place on account of his treatment and it also appears that, a notice is affixed to the conspicuous part of his residence where he was not residing and thereafter without there being any enquiry, the order came to be passed holding that the petitioner has abandoned his service.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has raised the industrial dispute. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner took a specific contention that domestic enquiry was not held and the Labour Court was required to frame an issue as to the fairness of the enquiry if any held and without there being any such issue, the Labour Court proceeded to hold trial on issue No.2 and because of this, the petitioner could not lead proper evidence relating to petitioner's ailment and absence which was justified on account of ailment from 22/1/2011 to 13/5/2012.