NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is running a medical mission hospital at Perunnai. The second respondent joined service as Compounder under the petitioner on December 25, 1969. She had been in the service of the petitioner for about 18 years. While so, she had applied for leave of two years on loss of pay from July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1990 on medical grounds, which was sanctioned by the petitioner. She had rejoined duty on July 1, 1990. Thereafter, again she had applied for leave for one year from July 19, 1990 on medical grounds. Even without waiting for the sanctioning of the leave, she left for Dubai, to join her husband who was working there. Thereupon, the petitioner issued a memo to the second respondent in her permanent address. But the same was returned unserved. Again the management issued a memo directing the second respondent to appear before a medical board, as she had taken leave on medical grounds. That was also not served on her. Therefore, the management, as per the order dated December 21, 1990, terminated her service with effect from July 19, 1990, the date on which she had abandoned the service.

(2.) IN April 1991, even before the expiry of the leave applied for, she returned to India and reported for duty. Then it was made known to her that her services had already been terminated with effect from July 19, 1990 and, therefore, she was not permitted to rejoin duty. When the matter was taken up before the Government, it referred the dispute to the first respondent.

(3.) BEFORE the first respondent, the petitioner contended that the second respondent had absented herself from duty on July 19, 1990 and since she continued her unauthorised absence, her services were terminated on December 21, 1990 giving effect to it from July 19, 1990. She went abroad for taking an assignment in Dubai. These contentions were denied by the second respondent. According to her, she had applied for leave on medical grounds. She was got examined by the Medical Officer attached to hospital of the petitioner. She had been under treatment for gynaecological problems. She left for Dubai not to take any foreign assignment, but only to have her treatment done there, for her husband was working there. She had been there for treatment and she returned to India to undergo a hysterectomy operation, which was done in the hospital under the petitioner itself. There was no justification for the management to deny her employment and not to sanction the medical leave applied for.