S SEKAR Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a workman. He has come forward to challenge the Award passed by the first respondent labour court in I.D.No.434 of 1994, dated 20.9.2000. By the impugned award, the first respondent labour court refused to grant any relief on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in approaching the labour court and that inasmuch as he had come to the labour court after eight years after the order of termination, i.e. 3.12.1986 the dispute was not maintainable in the light of the judgment of the court in 1997 (76) FLR 955.

(2.) The writ petition was admitted on 7.2.2001. On notice from this court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 3.11.2005. It is the case of the second respondent management that the petitioner was removed after a full-fledged enquiry regarding his unauthorised absence and that he was dismissed from service on 3.12.1986. Thereafter he raised a dispute after eight years and the dispute was registered as I.D.No.196 of 1994 by the Additional labour court, Chennai. After formation of the first respondent labour court at Vellore, the same was transferred and was renumbered as I.D.No.434 of 1994. Before the labour court, on behalf of the petitioner, he examined himself as W.W.1 and on the side of the second respondent society, one Sukumar was examined as M.W.1. On the side of the workman, 27 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.W.1 to W.27. On the side of the management, 24 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.24. The labour court framed three issues, i.e. a)Whether the charges against the workman were proved, b)whether the petitioner was guilty of delay and laches in seeking reinstatement and c)whether the workman was entitled for any relief.

(3.) Before the labour court, both sides agreed that there need not be any preliminary issue and all issues can be tried together. The labour court found that though the petitioner was taking leave without proper medical certificate and his unauthorised absence was found proved, the employer had shown indulgence to him on several occasions. The enquiry report found him guilty and that there was no reason to interfere with the findings. A perusal of Ex.M.6, dated 13.5.1986 which is an explanation submitted by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has admitted his charges and pleaded for leniency. It was also stated in the counter that the petitioner had not attended the office for 42-1/2 days within a period of five months. There was no medical record for the petitioner to justify his absence. The finding of the labour that that reference has to be rejected solely on the ground of delay cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Karan Singh Vs. Haryana State Marketing Board reported in 2007 (14) SCC 291. In that case the Supreme Court has held that the labour court must answer the reference in terms of Section 10(4) and no dispute can be rejected on grounds of delay and that the labour court has no authority to invalidate a reference. In the present case, apart from observing the long delay made by the workman, the labour court had also gone into the merits of the dispute and answered in negative regarding the relief to be granted to the workman.