RAJAMANICKAM T Vs. BINNY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT/workman has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the order passed by a learned single Judge in W. P. No. 18519/1990, setting aside the award of the III Additional Labour court, Chennai, in I. D. No. 317/1985, ordering reinstatement.

(2.) APPELLANT was employed as a Fitter in engineering Department of the first respondent mill on May 22, 1958. As a result of strike, the respondent Mill was closed from January 14, 1984 till December 28, 1984. Thereafter, the mill started functioning from December 29, 1984. On reopening of the Mill, the appellant, along with several others, was asked to report to weaving Department on December 29, 1984, but the appellant did not report for work on that day. As the appellant did not report for work for eight consecutive working days, the management terminated him from service. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the matter was referred to the III Additional Labour court, Madras, vide I. D. No. 317/1985.

(3.) THE Labour Court, on an appraisal of the evidence, both oral and documentary, ordered reinstatement of the appellant, holding that section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in short, "the Act", was not complied with by the management, over which, the management preferred the writ petition, wherein the learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition, setting aside the award of the labour Court. Hence, this writ appeal, at the instance of the appellant.