KASHIBAI SACHIDANAND Vs. HINDUSTAN PENCILS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as an operator with the respondent, where she served for about seven years. She went on leave from August 10, 1971 to August 16, 1971 as she was pregnant. Delivery appears to have taken place on August 19, 1971. She gave birth to twins, one of which was born dead, and the other died soon. This resulted in her prolonged illness She does not appear to have recovered from this illness when her services were terminated on October 2, 1971 by the respondent on the ground of her overstaying the leave, though she pleaded illness in her explanation to the show cause notice and tried to explain her failure to get the leave extended. When all her efforts to join the work and get reinstated through the union failed, the dispute was referred to the labour court on January 21, 1973. Her claim was resisted by the respondent on the ground that her overstaying the leave resulted in automatic termination of her services and by not getting the leave extended, she had voluntarily abandoned the job. No oral evidence was led at the trial. The labour court accepted the case of the respondent and rejected her claim on September 24, 1973. Legality of this order is challenged in this petition under Art. 227 of the constitution.

(2.) Dr. Kulkarni contends that finding of the labour Court that the petitioner abandoned her services voluntarily is perverse. It is indeed difficult to meet the force of this contention. Failure of the petitioner to enter the witness box appears to have weighed very much with the labour court. There can be no question that such failure must result in rejection of the disputed part of her case. But the petitioner's averments that she was pregnant, and had delivered twins on August 19, 1971 and both the twins died and she was continuously ill from August 10, 1971 to the date of her reporting for duty and was under medical treatment and certificates to that effect dated August 8, 1971 and September 14 1971 were sent by her and received by the respondent, were never disputed. The dispute centered round whether the applications for extension of leave were made and whether medical certificates were sent in time and whether she was sought to be victimised at all. The labour Court has obviously failed to grasp the importance of these averments and implication of their remaining undisputed.

(3.) Now, if the petitioner was continuously ill from August 10, 1971 till she reported for joining duty in November, 1971 to the respondent, the question of the petitioner having abandoned the job voluntarily ordinarily should not and cannot obviously arise. Her conduct in sending letters and medical certificates on September 14, 1971 and prompt explanation on September 24, 1971 to show cause notice dated September 23, 1971. strongly militate against her having ever intended to give up the job or abandon the services We have already indicated that the fact of her continuous illness as also the genuineness of the medical certificates tendered by her to the respondent though not in time is not disputed in the written-statement filed by the respondent and thus could not be disputed in the course of hearing of this matter before us by Mr. Shetye Whatever the effect and consequences of her failure to apply for extension of leave and to send the medical certificates in time, her absence from duty and overstaying the leave, shall have to be attributed to her undoubted continuous illness and not to any intention of abandoning the services or the job. In the face of these facts, any inference of the petitioner having abandoned the services shall have to be ignored as being patently perverse.