TEXMACO LTD Vs. K MOUNSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Company challenging the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.8.2001, made in I.D.No.189 of 1999.

(3.) NO counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent employee. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the second respondent Labour Court had come to the right conclusion that the dismissal of the first respondent from the services of the petitioner Company, is illegal and void. Therefore, the second respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated 27.8.2001, directing the reinstatement of the first respondent, with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. The second respondent Labour Court had rightly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in granting the award in favour of the first respondent. Since the petitioner Company had passed an order for the alleged unauthorised absence of the first respondent, without giving a show cause notice to the first respondent and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case, the said order is clearly contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the second respondent Labour Court had rightly set aside the said order and ordered the reinstatement of the first respondent in the services of the petitioner Company, with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits.