DESHABHIMANI DAILY Vs. APPUKUTTAN VALLIKUNNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management in two industrial disputes namely ID Nos. 17/07 and 35/08 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner in these two writ petitions. They are challenging Ext. P7 common award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in those IDs. Although two separate industrial disputes were referred for adjudication essentially the issue involved in both is the same, which is more succistinctly stated in the issue referred for adjudication in ID. No. 17/07 which reads as follows:

(2.) Before the Labour Court, the petitioner took the stand that the workman was never denied employment by the petitioner. According to them he was unauthorisedly absent from 8.9.98 onwards and he did not rejoin duty after medical leave. Therefore disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman for unauthorized absence. An enquiry was conducted, the workman was found guilty of the misconduct. He was given a show cause notice for imposition of punishment. But before the same could be finalised, the workman attained the age of superannuation on 20.12.2005. Therefore, taking a lenient view it was decided not to impose any punishment on the workman, instead the period of absence from 8.9.98 to 20.12.2005 was treated as leave without allowances and he was paid gratuity for the period of his actual service. Therefore they took the stand that the industrial disputes themselves were not entertainable insofar as Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable. The disputes were raised by the workman himself and were not raised by a union to constitute an industrial dispute as defined in the said Act. Therefore, the reference itself is not maintainable was the contention raised.

(3.) The Labour Court adjudicated the disputes, examined witnesses and based on the evidence adduced by both sides, chose to believe the evidence of the workman and to disbelieve the evidence of the management reaching the conclusion that the workman was actually denied employment unjustifiably Consequently, since the workman had already paid salary for September and October, the Labour Court directed the management to pay to the workman, salary and allowances for the period from 1.11.98 to 20.12.2005. Ext. P7 in WP.(C). No. 20846 of 2009 is the common award in the two I.Ds challenged in both writ petitions. The management is challenging that common award on two specific grounds. The first is that the reference itself is not entertainable since the workman was not entitled to invoke section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, insofar as there is no dismissal, termination from service, denial of employment and other contingencies, on existence of which alone Section 2A can be invoked by the workman. According to them, this is a simple case of superannuation which will not come within the purview of the Section 2A of the Act, and since the dispute was not raised by a Union of workman exposing the cause of the workman, no valid industrial dispute could have been referred for adjudication under the Act. The second is that the workman was actually unauthorisedly absent from 8.9.98 onwards and the findings of the Labour Court contrary to the same is demonstrably perverse. It is submitted that, the Labour Court has relied on evidence which was totally inadmissible and entered a perverse finding on the basis of the evidence available, which was in fact proved the contention of the management. The counsel for the petitioner would take me to the discussion of evidence in the award and would argue that the Labour Court has misdirected herself, while coming to the conclusion that the workman was in fact denied employment by the petitioner. It is submitted that the only conclusion possible on the basis of the evidence available before the Labour Court was that, during the period in question, the workman was unauthorisedly absent till his date of superannuation and the management was extraordinary lenient in favour of the workman in allowing him to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, although he was found guilty of the misconduct of unauthorized absence in an enquiry validly conducted for that purpose.