MANAGEMENT OF TTK - LIG LIMITED REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI AND P.M. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are common with a challenge to the very same Award of the Labour Court, they have been taken up together and dealt with by a Common Order.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3607 of 2009 is that the petitioner/management is engaged in the manufacture of condoms. The second respondent/workman joined the service of the management in the year 1991 and he was working as Operator. As the second respondent/workman was a habitual absentee, during the years, 1997 and 1998, disciplinary action was initiated against him for his unauthorized absence and he was awarded with minor punishment. Thereafter, on 16.09.1998, the second respondent/workman reported for duty and he was allowed to work in the first shift, viz., from 06.00 AM to 02.00 PM. At about 12.00 noon, he made a request for leave and left the place, and thereafter, nothing was heard from him. On 07.01.1999, the petitioner/management sent a letter to the second respondent/workman, advising him to report for duty, followed by reminders, dated 15.01.1999 and 05.02.1999. Since the second respondent/workman did not turn up for duty, despite the above communications, on 20.02.1999, the petitioner/management sent a final reminder, requiring him to report for duty, on or before 25.02.1999. In the said communication, it was made clear that if the second respondent/workman did not turn up for duty, on or before the said date, his name would be removed from the rolls of the company, with effect from 28.02.1999. However, the second respondent/workman did not report for duty. Thereafter, it was alleged that on 22.03.1999, the second respondent/workman submitted a letter to the petitioner/management requesting that on suspicion ground, he was arrested by the police, on 16.09.1998, and thereafter, he was released on bail and when he reported for duty, he was not allowed to join duty. By reply letter, dated 30.03.1999, the petitioner/management informed the second respondent/workman that in view of his absence from 17.09.1998, despite the letter of the petitioner/management, his name was removed from the rolls of the company from 28.02.1999. The petitioner/management specifically denied the allegations of the second respondent/workman that when he reported for duty, he was not permitted to resume work. As the second respondent/workman was not allowed to report for duty, he raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, by Award, dated 18.11.2008, directed reinstatement of the second respondent/workman in service, without back wages.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of the Award, dated 18.11.2008, made in I.D.No.65 of 2000, on the file of the first respondent, directing reinstatement of the workman in service, without back wages, the management has come forward to file W.P.(MD)No.3607 of 2009.