BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner / respondent / Transport Corporation has filed the above writ petition against the order passed in I.D.No. 31 of 2007, on the file of Labour Court, Cuddalore.

(2.) THE petitioner / Radhakrishnan was working as a Conductor in Chola Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam Branch in the year 1986. Now, the said Corporation is renamed as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division - I. The petitioner was removed from service on 25. 11.1995 due to medical grounds and thereafter he was offered employment once again at the same Branch since 24.05.1996. On 18. 02.1997, he was transferred to Chidambaram, without assigning any reason. The petitioner was suffering from Urinal stone problem, which was informed to the Depot Manager of Chidambaram Branch, through leave letter supported with medical documents. It was accepted and medical leave was also granted to him. After medical leave, the petitioner / Radhakrishnan joined duty and was reporting to work sincerely. But, after 23.07.1999, he was denied duty for the period of 23 days for which, no reason was given and no justification was done. He was allowed to resume work after 15th August 1999 and suddenly he was issued with termination order by the Management on 23.09.1999 stating that the petitioner / Radhakrishnan was irregular to work. The General Manager relied on the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer, which was conducted unfairly thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not at all given an opportunity to make his representation to defend the case in the enquiry and his plea of ill health was not at all considered. The petitioner made several representations to the Corporation to reinstate him. Since there was no response on the side of the Corporation, the petitioner sent a grievance petition to the Chief Minister's Cell for which the Corporation made a reply to the Chief Minister's Cell with a copy to the petitioner dated 09.06.2004 stating that he cannot be reinstated. The petitioner issued a lawyer's notice to the Corporation on 12.07.2004 stating the above facts and claimed employment with back wages. The Corporation did not give any reply. The petitioner filed an Industrial Dispute Petition before the Labour Officer, at Thanjavur for conciliation. But, the Corporation denied the employment for the petitioner. The Labour Officer sent a failure report on 02.02.2006. Hence, the petitioner filed the Industrial Dispute petition in I.D.No. 31 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Cuddalore to reinstate him with continuity of service and with back wages .

(3.) THE Labour Court had framed an issue and on recording the oral evidence of both parties and perusal of the exhibits marked by both parties, was pleased to allow the Industrial Dispute Petition in part and observed that the employee / V.Radhakrishnan is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service only and further observed that the employee / V.Radhakrishnan is not entitled for back -wages and other attendant benefits.