MANAGEMENT TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the Writ Petitions were filed by the State owned Transport Corporation having its headquarters at Dharmapuri. In the 1st Writ Petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai made in Approval Petition No.252 of 2003 dated 16.2.2006. By the said impugned order, the said authority refused to grant approval for dismissing the contestant 2nd respondent (J.Sengolan) from the service of the Corporation. That Writ Petition was admitted on 13.3.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the matter was referred for resolution of the dispute by the Lock Adalat and the matter, as could not be resolved, came back from the Lok Adalat with an endorsement to that effect and thus taken up for final hearing.

(2.) AFTER perusing the records, it is found that the same petitioner has filed another Writ Petition earlier being W.P.No.44559 of 2006 challenging the award made by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.77 of 2004 dated 8.3.2005. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman J.Sengolan, the 2nd respondent in the earlier Writ Petition as well as in the present Writ Petition without backages but with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. That Writ Petition was admitted on 20.11.2006. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted with the condition that the management should comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi that the said order has been complied with and he also produced a covering letter dated 31.8.2007. It was also informed to the 2nd respondent that he should forward a copy of the affidavit for his non-employment which is a requirement under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent workman filed a counter statement disputing that his absence was unauthorised and he submitted that on 6.11.2002 he sent a letter through courier and that this leave letter was returned from the Branch with the endorsement "refused to accept". THErefore, it was wrong on the part of the Corporation to state that his absence was unauthorised.