JOY XAVIER A S Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The central question involved in this Writ Appeal is whether the termination of service of the appellant workman by the respondent Management would amount to 'retrenchment' coming within the meaning of the said term defined in S.2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) By Ext. P13 award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam on 14.5.1991 it was found that the termination of service of the workman did not amount to 'retrenchment' and hence he was not entitled to be reinstated with or without backwages or to any other relief. This award was challenged by the workman in O. P. No. 7153 of 1992. The learned single Judge after hearing found that the second respondent Management had terminated the service of the workman under Clause.21(c) of the Certified Standing Orders for the reason that he unauthorisedly absented himself from duty and hence termination was not illegal. Challenging the above conclusion of the learned single Judge the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the workman.

(3.) The facts in brief are stated hereunder: The appellant workman was employed as piece worker in the Finishing Department of the Management with effect from 20.8.1982. He was confirmed by the Management on 12.5.1986. He absented himself from duty with effect from 18.6.1986. Therefore the Management sent a registered notice dated 7.7.1986 (M10) to the appellant calling upon him to show cause within three days why it would not be deemed that he left the service of the company as provided in Clause.21(c) of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. The said notice was returned with postal endorsement that "addressee out of India - returned to sender". Therefore the Management sent a copy of the show cause notice under Certificate of Posting (M13) on 7.8.1986. By the said notice the appellant was also informed that by virtue of Clause.21(c) of the Certified Standing Orders it would be deemed that he had left the service of the company. The cover containing this notice was also returned with acknowledgement slip with the same endorsement. Later the workman reported to duty on 28.12.1986 and produced a medical certificate (M3) showing that he was under treatment from 18.6.1986 to 27.12.1986 in the Mental Hospital, Trichur as he was suffering from 'anxiety neurosis'. His case was that because of the said ailment he was not able to apply for leave and therefore on 26.6.1986 his wife sent a letter to the Management informing that the workman was undergoing treatment. Ext. M1 is the copy of the said letter dated 26.6.1986 produced by the workman. This letter was not received by the Management. However, invoking the provision contained in Clause.21(c) of the Certified Standing Orders the respondent company terminated the service of the workman for unauthorised absence without leave. The workman therefore raised a dispute before the District Labour Officer, Trichur and on failure of the same the matter was referred by the Government for adjudication by the Labour Court. Consequently the dispute was adjudicated by the first respondent Labour Court as I.D. No. 3 of 1988. The appellant was examined as WW 1 and W1 was marked on his side. The Management did not adduce any oral evidence but produced documents marked as Exts. M1 to M15 . After the enquiry the Labour Court passed Ext. P13 award confirming the termination of the workman and thus disallowed reinstatement with or without backwages.