T N ANDAL Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE above writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the second respondent Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, dated 14.6.99, made in I.D.No.63 of 1993, rejecting the petitioner's claim for reinstatement, with all attendant benefits. THE petitioner has stated that she had joined in the service of the first respondent Port Trust, on 15.12.1979, as a Lower Division Clerk. She has a blemishless record of service. While so, she had given birth to a female child, on 8.2.86. THEreafter, she had given birth to a second child, on 17.10.87. She had availed Maternity leave of 90 days, during the birth of the first child, as per the entitlement. She had availed the leave from 8.2.86 to 8.5.86. Since the first child was suffering from certain ailments, she had applied for extension of leave from 8.5.86 to 7.7.86 and it was sanctioned by the authorities concerned. Subsequent to the expiry of the leave, the petitioner had suffered due to ailments and therefore, she was constrained to apply for further extension of leave from 8.7.86 to 5.10.86, on personal medical grounds. However, on the expiry of the said leave, she could not report back for duty owing to continued medical problems, due to which she had further extended her leave from 6.10.86 to 4.1.87. While so, the first respondent administration had directed the petitioner to report for duty on 5.1.87, on the expiry of the petitioner's leave on 4.1.87. However, the petitioner had to apply for leave for a further period of 30 days from 5.1.87. Since her child continued to be unwell, she was constrained to apply for leave for one year from 5.12.87 to 4.1.88.

(3.) IN view of the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as for the first respondent and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner had availed long leave without the authorization of the first respondent Port Trust, wherein, she was employed. Therefore, the respondent management had issued a charge memo, dated 20.8.88, to the petitioner for unauthorized absence from duty from 5.1.88, as it was in violation of Regulation 20(2) of the Tuticorin Port Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1979. IN spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on 20.9.88, the first respondent management, had conducted an enquiry based on the charge memo, dated 20.8.88. However, the enquiry had to be concluded exparte, as the petitioner had not attended the enquiry. Based on the findings in the enquiry, the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner by an order, dated 27.4.89. The appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the order, dated 27.4.89, had also been dismissed by an order, dated 28.11.89, passed by the first respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the INdustrial Tribunal, Chennai, in I.D.No.63 of 1993. Even though the petitioner had raised the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it has not been shown as to how the principles of natural justice had been violated during the enquiry proceedings conducted by the first respondent management. IN fact, the petitioner had not participated in the enquiry and the enquiry proceedings had been conducted in accordance with the Rules and Regulations applicable to the conduct of such enquiry.