GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND MANAGEMENT OF SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the Common Order passed in Writ petition Nos. 5266 of 1994 and W.P. No. 11554 of 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 19.07.2001, by means of which the award of the Second Additional Labour Court, Madras in Industrial Dispute No. 377 of 1988 dated 20.10.1993 faced dismissal. Factual background of the matter goes thus:

(2.) The appellant herein was posted in the Technical Division on 01.02.1982 in the second respondent Management. Thereafter, he was promoted as Mechanical Engineer and placed in Urea plant at Tuticorin. He was transferred as such to Madras on 27.06.1986. He was directed by the Management to attend duty at Managuru in Khammam District of Andhrapradesh. Along with him, the Project Manager Sherfudeen and another by name Muthaiah were also asked to report for duty on 22.12.1986 for erection of a machine. It is stated by the appellant that on account of his indisposition, he was unable to report for the duty and attend the office from 12.12.1986 to 16.12.1986 and he conveyed the message through his co-employees Palani and Kanagaraj to the Management and that he joined duty on 17.12.1986, producing a medical certificate. A charge sheet was slapped on him, stating that he had been on leave without permission which was a misconduct under Standing Order No. 110. He was also directed to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him. On 19.12.1986 he submitted his explanation narrating the above said facts for his absence. Then he reported for duty at Managuru in the afternoon on 24.12.1986. 25.12.1986 was a holiday on account of Christmas and hence he did not appear for duty. He attended the work on 26.12.1986. The charge sheet contained the following three charges as transpired from the Enquiry Report:

(3.) Against the decision of the Management, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Vice Chairman and President of the Corporation which suffered dismissal. Then, he filed a petition under Section 2A or industrial Dispute Act against the said order before the Labour Officer and since the conciliation did not bring about desired result, he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 377 of 1988 before the Second Additional Labour Court at Madras, in which an award was passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the said Court, on 20.10.1993, considering the fact that the charges were proved, denying 50% of the back wages and ordering reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages for the period of non-employment with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.