LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-143

MANAGEMENT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On February 14, 2020
MANAGEMENT Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Management is the writ petitioner. Challenge made in this writ petition is against the award of the Labour Court dated 30.11.2012, modifying the order of discharge as to compulsory retirement of the second respondent.

(2.) The case of the Management is as follows: The Bank of Madura Limited was merged with ICICI Bank on March 10, 2001. All the employees and officers, who were on the rolls of Bank of Madura Ltd., were taken on the rolls of ICICI Bank on the terms and conditions applicable to them, while they were working in Bank of Madura Ltd. From the date of amalgamation, ICICI Bank became the employer of the second respondent. The second respondent was a Clerk on the rolls of the erstwhile Bank of Madura. He suffered from numerous ailments which affected his ability to perform his duties. Citing those infirmities, the second respondent was continuously absent from duty between 04.09.2006 till the date of his termination viz., 25.06.2009, which was for nearly three years. The Management, taking into consideration of his predicament and record of service, have been most considerate. In addition to sanctioning leave till 25.06.2009, on his request each and every time, the petitioner paid the medical expenses incurred by the second respondent as well, unmindful of the difficulties caused by his absence. On 17.06.2009, the second respondent applied for further leave. However, in the light of his continuous ill health, as established by his own medical certificates showing that he was suffering from Cardiac disease and hypertension, and seeing no sign of his condition improving for returning to work, the Management was compelled to discharge him from service on the grounds of continued ill health, vide letter dated 25.06.2009. The Management paid a sum of Rs.87,690/-, being his salary in lieu of notice period. The second respondent challenged the order of discharge by alleging that it amounted to retrenchment and thus, is in violation of Sections 25F , 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner Management resisted the claim by contending that discharge of an employee will not constitute retrenchment, if done on the ground of continued ill health. It was also contended that since the discharge itself cannot be brought under the definition of retrenchment, Sections 25F , 25G and 25H of the Act do not apply to the present case. The second respondent's medical certificates produced for the period between 04.09.2006 and 25.06.2009 establish the fact that he was suffering from continued unabated ill health and that his continued absence had already caused inconvenience to the bank. The Labour Court, however passed the award, even though it has found that it is a fit case for discharge on the ground of continued ill health.

(3.) No counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent/employee. However, the matter is contested by him through his counsel.