RAJAN T K Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Ext. P4 order dated August 7, 1990 in C. P. No. 72 of 1988 on the file of the Labour Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) PETITIONER is a workman on the permanent rolls of the 2nd respondent. He had applied for six days privilege leave from March 12, 1988 to March 18, 1988 and according to him, it was sanctioned by the competent authority. He had an off day tagged to the above spell. When wages were paid subsequently, it was found that the wages for the above days were not paid. On enquiry, he understood that as a strike intervened, the management has decided subsequently to cancel the leave. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to the privilege leave applied for and sanctioned. He estimates that an amount of Rs. 395. 08 is due to him from the 2nd respondent. He submits that he was not a member of any of the unions and he had not struck work on the date of strike. According to him, the withholding of the amount is illegal and it is a benefit payable to him by virtue of the provisions of the binding award and also the standing orders of the company. He, therefore, filed C. P. No. 72/88 on the file of the first respondent. :

(3.) THE management filed a written statement before the first respondent and contended that petition is not maintainable. According to the management, three out of the four recognised trade unions gave notice to the management intimating that the workmen of Cochin Division would strike work for three days i. e. March 14, 1988 to March 26, 1988. It published a notice on the notice board and informed all the workers concerned that it would be in the interest of the employees not to participate in the strike and if the employees absent Rajan T. K. vs. Labour Court and Ors. (17. 06. 1996 -KERHC) Page 3 of 9 jan T. K. vs. Labour Court and Ors. (17. 06. 1996 -KERHC) Page 3 of 9 themselves and participate in the illegal strike, apart from loss of wages on the basis of 'no work, no pay', it reserved its right to take action as it may deem fit. The management had also taken a decision to cancel all the leave sanctioned and required all the employees to report for duty due to exigencies of work. A notice to that effect was published on March 9, 1988 itself. The leave applied for by the petitioner was not sanctioned or concurred by the Personnel Manager as the petitioner did not make out any compelling reasons for granting him the leave during the strike days. Since the leave was not sanctioned, he is not entitled to any leave wages for that period. The leave of any kind cannot be claimed as a matter of right. After having participated in the illegal strike, petitioner cannot claim to regularise the same against the leave to his credit. Since he had participated in the illegal strike, he is not entitled to wages.