SPENCER AND CO LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner prays for an order quashing the award dated 10 July, 1962, passed by the industrial tribunal in Mysore, Bangalore, in Industrial Dispute No. 42 of 1961, on a reference made by the Government of Mysore under their order No. PLM. 435 LLD. 61, dated 18 December, 1961. The reference related to the termination of the services of one Muthu Nair who was working as a head dhobi in the establishment of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts are follows : Muthu Nair was working as a head dhobi in the hotel of the petitioners. He was examined by one doctor, V. G. Ranganathan, the medical officer of the company, first on 20 April, 1961. The employee was found to be suffering from high blood pressure and there was also a murmur in his heart. The employee was advised to take rest for 23 days. Again, the employee was examined on 15 May, 1961. He was advised rest for 15 days. Again, on 5 June 1961, the employee was examined by the company's doctor and also by the cardiac specialist. On the basis of these examinations, the company's doctor gave a certificate of unfitness on 6 June, 1961. On the basis of this certificate, the services of Muthu Nair were terminated on 9 June, 1961. The employee disputed the correctness of the certificate issued by the company's doctor and challenged it as mala fide and actuated by malice. The petitioner examined his doctor and also the cardiac specialist who had confirmed the view of the medical officer. The employee examined one Dr. B. Venkatasubba Rao who had examined the employee in respect of his heart condition on 17 and 22 September, 1961. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and the certificate issued by the several doctors, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of the employee was not justified and directed the reinstatement of the employee with backwages from the date of termination of his services. The petitioner-management has filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the industrial tribunal.

(3.) Before Setting out the contentions of Sri T. Krishna Rao, the petitioner's counsel it is necessary to state that the conditions of service of the employee are governed by the standing orders of the company. The relevant rules are 12 and 22 and they are as follows : Rule 12. - "Unless 14 days' notice is given to head office or to a department manager in Madras, leave for more than three days at a time shall not be granted except in the case of sickness. Any employee who desires to obtain leave shall ordinarily apply to the manager at least three clear days previous to the day in the week fixed for the purpose of granting and refusing leave or in the cases of casual leave three days previous to the day on which such leave is to commence. Application may be made at any time if the leave applied for is of an urgent nature, that is to commence on the date of the application or within two days thereof. No leave of absence will be granted for less than halfday. An employee who, after proceeding on leave, desires an extension thereof shall make an application in writing for the purpose to the manager. A written reply either of the grant or refusal of extension of leave shall be sent to the employee if his address is supplied on the application and if such reply is likely to reach him before the expiry of the leave originally granted to him. In the case of sickness or in the case of special circumstances which cannot be foreseen when it is not possible to obtain the previous permission of the manager, the employee shall, as soon as practicable, inform the manager in writing of his absence from work and of the probable duration of such absence. The necessary medical certificate must be sent within three days. An employee who has been absent for more than two weeks owing to sickness, will not be allowed to resume work after illness unless he produces a written declaration to the effect that he is fit for service from the company's doctor or, if the company's doctor is not available, from a registered medical practitioner Rule 22. -