KADAMANE ESTATES CO Vs. H. MOHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the employer challenging the order of the Labour Court passed in favour of the workman directing payment of full back wages in view of the fact that workman had attained his age of superannuation during the pendency of this proceedings.

(2.) THE facts averred are that the respondent was employed in a Tea Estate of the petitioner and in the year 1992, he was transferred from the field to the Factory. On 31 -5 -1993, the workman had suffered an accident while in the factory and he was given first aid in the Estate -s Hospital and further was sent to the Government Hospital at Hassan for treatment. Thereafter, the workman had never come back for work and in this connection, the Management had held an enquiry and since he was a chronic absentee, was suspended from work. It is alleged that he was absent for 123 days during the year 1988 and has been warned and thereafter, again he was unauthorisedly absent for 80 days in the year 1989 and since in 1993 he had repeated his absenteeism, it was taken that he had abandoned work and therefore, there was no cause of action. However, the workman had instituted an application under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ' Ã .."the Act' for brevity), claiming that he has been refused work and therefore, illegally retrenched. The Labour Court having found as a fact that there was an enquiry held in so far as the respondent was concerned, has passed the present award.

(3.) PER contra, Shri. Syed Basheer, appearing for the respondent would submit that the allegations are not substantiated. Firstly, in so far as the application under Section 33(1) (3) of the Act said to have been made by the petitioner, is much subsequent to the claim having been lodged under Section 10 (4 -A) of the Act by the respondent. In that, the application under Section 10 (4 -A) of the Act was filed in the year 1993, whereas the application seeking permission under Section 33(1) (3) of the Act was filed in the year 1994. It is for this reason that the Labour Court has negated the said contention and there is no illegality in the Labour Court in having considered the said application and having proceeded with the enquiry under Section 10 (4 -A) of the Act. In any event, the Labour Court has found as a fact that he was illegally terminated. The counsel would submit that any other opinion, even if possible to be formed by this Court, would not warrant interference with the findings of the Labour Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the absence of any other alleged infirmity, in the manner in which the Labour Court has addressed the dispute and therefore would submit that the workman having attained his age of superannuation, the award of back wages is fully justified in view of the fact that the termination was held to be illegal.