M S ABBOBACKER Vs. HMT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the dispute between a workman and employer regarding retrenchment, we should have thought that the controversy in this original petition can no longer be in challenge in view of a Division Bench ruling of this Court in H. M. T. Ltd. v. Labour Court (1983) 63 FJR 28. But a learned single Judge of this Court has referred this writ petition for consideration by a larger Bench on the ground that certain points highlighted in the reference order have not been considered by the Division Bench. It may be accidental that the employer before the Division Bench in 1983 and also before us happens to be the same, namely, H. M. T. Ltd. , Kalamassery. We shall extract the reference order to understand the implications of the questions involved for determination: The Labour Court held in exhibit P-4 award chat the petitioner had lost his lien on the post he was holding, under Standing Order No. 19 (4), owing to overstayal of leave and failure to furnish the necessary explanation. The employer had not terminated his services and the Labour Court had no grounds to interfere.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that loss of lien involuntarily suffered by or inflicted on an employee under such circumstances would amount to 'retrenchment' as defined in Section 2 (00) of the Industrial Disputes Act; and counsel for the first respondent would point out that no such point had been taken before the Labour Court.

(3.) I do not think the employee should be debarred from raising the question at this stage. It is a pure question of law to be decided on undisputed facts. The discretion of the court in a matter like this must be exercised in favour of an unemployed person.