LAWS(MAD)-2006-10-33

MANAGEMENT OF FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD Vs. PRESIDENT OFFICER

Decided On October 10, 2006
MANAGEMENT OF FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD. Appellant
V/S
PRESIDENT OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent Labour Court, Chennai, dated 23/6/2006 passed in I. D. No. 73 of 2006 in I. A. No. 465 of 2004.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was working as Plant Operator in the petitioners manufacturing plant. He was unauthorized absent from 09. 02. 2004 on the ground of Psychosomanic illness. When he appeared again on 21. 02. 2004, he was directed to go to Medical Board to check his medical fitness for which he declined. Thereafter, he was discharged from service by an order dated 08. 09. 2004 with retrospective effect. Even before his discharge, the second respondent has raised Industrial Dispute as though he was discharge on 21. 02. 2004 before the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner/management has filed a counter statement stating that the second respondent was still in service and was not removed.

(3.) THE Conciliation Officer has sent a failure report on 24. 08. 2004, which was received by the second respondent and the petitioner on 02. 09. 2004. It was only thereafter, on 08. 09. 2004, the second respondent was discharged from service with effect from 09. 02. 2004. It is on the complaint of the second respondent before the Labour Court that he was removed from service, the Labour Court has taken the same as regular I. D. No. 465 of 2004 under Section 2a (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application in I. A. No. 73 of 2006, in the said I. D. stating that he only filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for his non-employment, but the Labour Court without his consent has filed it as I. D. No. 465 of 2004 under Section 2a (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, he has filed an application for converting the I. D. No. 465 of 2004 as complaint under Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said I. A. itself was filed in the form of a memo without furnishing any details.