UNION Vs. INDIAN OXYGEN EMPLOYEESSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the Government's refusal to make a reference.

(2.) THIRU A. Veerapandian an employee of Indian Oxygen Ltd., the second respondent herein, went to his native place during the Deepavali holidays in 1978. Quite unexpectedly, he was stated to have fallen ill there and subsequently he was unable to join duty immediately. He returned for duty on January 29, 5 1979, and produced medical certificate for the period of his absence due to sickness. The second respondent did not allow him to resume duty. Therefore, through the petitioner Union, he raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings initiated before the Labour Officer, I, Madras, failed. On receipt of the failure report, the Government of Tamil Nadu/first respondent herein, after taking into consideration the relevant materials, declined to make a reference by its order in G.O.Ms. No. 2112, Labour and Employment Department, dated December 20, 1979. It is this order of the first respondent that is now challenged in this writ petition. 2a. From the pith substance of the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, the following points emerge for consideration : (i) Whether the Government's refusal to make a reference suffers from the serious infirmity of considering extraneous or irrelevant matters "

(3.) WE now proceed to sift the materials available on record, inclusive of the relevant Standing Orders, in an endeavour to reach a just conclusion in the case. In the process of analysis of such materials, we may advert to certain facts admitted, beyond pale of controversy, they being : The workman went to his native village during the Deepavali holidays in 1978. He was stated to have fallen ill there. After he was cured of the malady of the illness with which he was suffering, he reported for duty on January 29, 1979, These aspects are referred to in his letter dated January 29, 1979 addressed to the Manager of the first respondent company. Of course, no reference is made in the letter as to from what date he absented himself without leave. Though this aspect is not specifically referred to in his letter, there is no controversy as to his abstention from duty without leave on and from November 1, 1978. Nothing is seen from the contents of the said letter, that he had sent any application for leave, enclosing a medical certificate for his illness. As such, the sordid but admitted fact remains that he was absent between November 1, 1978 and January 28, 1979, without making any application for leave and consequent sanction thereof. When he returned for duty on January 29, 1979, the first respondent did not allow him to resume duty on the fact of the provisions adumbrated in clauses 7(f) and 12(vi) of the Standing Order.