MANAGEMENT Vs. SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.1.2006, made in C.P.No.400 of 2004

(2.) BY its order, dated 27.1.2006, the second respondent Labour Court had directed the petitioner management to pay a sum of Rs.58,456/- to the first respondent, as the amount due to her, as salary. The petitioner management has stated that the first respondent had been appointed as a writer in the petitioner management school, which is a minority institution. The monthly salary of the first respondent had been fixed at Rs.4104/-. Thereafter, she had been re-appointed. She is governed by the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner management had submitted that the order of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.1.2006, made in C.P.No.400 of 2004, is arbitrary illegal and void. It is contrary to the provisions of the Code of regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu. THE second respondent Labour Court had committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner management was liable to pay the salary to the first respondent employee for the period of her unauthorised absence. THE second respondent Labour Court had not considered the fact that the first respondent had absented herself from duty, without the authorisation of the petitioner management and without producing the necessary medical certificate, in accordance with the service rules applicable to her. THE second respondent Labour Court had accepted the claim of the petitioner management, in spite of the fact that the first respondent had admitted that the petitioner management had asked her to join in duty on 3.11.2003. Further, the second respondent Labour Court ought to have held that the first respondent should have filed an appeal, under Section 22A of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools. THErefore, the order of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.1.2006, made in C.P.No.400 of 2004, is liable to be set aside.