SUBRAMANIYAN S Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a watchman in the respondent-Corporation. He was terminated from service on the ground of absence without leave. Therefore he raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court found that the termination was illegal, but came to the conclusion that it is not in the interest of the respondent- Corporation to continue to employ the petitioner and therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 16,000 as compensation and awarded Rs. 20,000 towards gratuity. Against this, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Labour Court was not justified in not awarding reinstatement. He would also submit that the conclusion of the Labour Court was coloured by certain misconceptions, which were not justified. The Labour Court appeared to have the impression that the petitioner though residing at Kangeyam had deliberately gone to Coimbatore, to send a telegram indicating his illness, obtaining a medical certificate from a doctor at Coimbatore. According to the learned counsel, this impression is totally wrong, since even as per the records the petitioner's address is only at Coimbatore. He had always been residing at Coimbatore and had gone to Kangeyam, the place where he worked for the respondent-Corporation everyday. On July 24, 1989, when he was assigned night-duty he could not attend to his work because of high temperature and therefore, he sent a telegram from Coimbatore, which is evidenced by Exhibit M3 telegram receipt to show that he was suffering from viral hepatitis. The Labour Court also finds that the absence for two days on July 24, 1989 and July 25, 1989, and the reasons therefor are proved by the telegram. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a telegram (sic) for leave to the Branch Manager, Kangeyam, by ordinary post.

(3.) The Labour Court appears to think that a person who takes the precaution of taking a copy of the telegram receipt is not likely to send his leave on medical grounds by ordinary post. Such presumptions have no basis. On August 18, 1989, the petitioner was issued a chargesheet. In his explanation, dated September 7, 1989, the petitioner had enclosed the xerox copy of the telegram receipt, the leave letters and the medical certificates. This explanation is marked as Exhibit M3. On January 30, 1990, there was an enquiry. Before that, the petitioner had addressed a letter to the respondent for permission to be restored to duty. This is, dated March 20, 1990. On April 1, 1990, he was permitted to join duty without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. It appears that the petitioner continued to serve the respondent until he was dismissed on October 27, 1990. The petitioner is one among the three watchmen of the respondent- corporation. There are three shifts. In fact, before the Labour Court neither party adduced oral evidence.