VIJAYAN C Vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING mainly Ext. P13 award of the Labour Court, Kozhikode in ID (C) No. 2 of 2002, the petitioner/workman preferred this writ petition. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the issue viz., justifiability of the action of the management in declaring voluntary cessation of the service of worker, for adjudication of the Tribunal. By the impugned award, the Tribunal answered the issue in favour of the management upholding the impugned action of the management in declaring voluntary cessation of service of the petitioner/the workman. The above finding and award are challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he entered into the service of the Catholic Syrian Bank during the year, 1979 as Peon. After his joining in service, he had discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the management which was recognised and admitted by the management as per Ext. P1 series of certificates. According to the petitioner, after nineteen years from his entry in service, that is from 1998 onwards, he had some mental disease and he had undergone prolonged treatment for the same. According to him, he could fully recover only by 25/05/2000. That being the position, the management issued Ext. P3 show cause notice dated 09/09/1999 wherein it is stated that he was wilfully absent from 16/06/1999 without submitting leave application and he had not joined duty even after receiving another notice on 25/06/1999 and a letter dated 17/08/1999, which he received only on 23/08/1999. THE management, pursuant to Ext. P3, issued Ext. P4 order by which he was relieved from the service of the Bank with effect from 09/10/1999 on Voluntary Cessation of Employment.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the Tribunal has miserably failed to understand and appreciate the various provisions of the settlement, i.e., Ext. P15 and simply upheld the action taken by the management. By inviting clause 13 of Ext. P15 settlement, the learned counsel submits that for issuing a show cause notice like Ext. P3, the management will get cause of action only on the expiry of 90 days from the date of the alleged unauthorised absence of the delinquent workman. In the present case, referring to Ext. P3, it is pointed out that even according to the management, the workman was absent from 16/06/1999 and therefore, in view of clause 13(a) of Ext. P15 settlement, the management can issue notice only on a date after 16/09/1999, but in the present case, admittedly, the notice is dated 09/09/1999. THErefore, there is no valid notice as contemplated by the settlement and therefore, Ext. P4 order is illegal. But the Tribunal miserably failed to understand the above provision contained in the settlement which is a provision to be considered in favour of the workman. It is also the case of the learned counsel that by producing Ext. P5, medical fitness certificate dated 25/05/2000 issued by WW 2, and other documents, the petitioner/ workman succeeded in establishing the fact that there was no wilful absence from attending the duty and he had been constrained to keep away from the service because of his mental ill health. THE learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the above ground and on wrong appreciation of the facts and evidence involved in the case. THE Tribunal erroneously held especially, on the basis of Ext. M22 that the petitioner/workman could have reported for duty and his version for absence of duty due to ill-health is unbelievable. Thus, according to the learned counsel, Ext. P4 order and Ext. P13 award are liable to be set aside.