DHARMARAJ VITHOBA NATEKAR Vs. UNIQUE INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award of the Second Labour Court, Pune, dated 30th July, 1987 made in Reference (IDA) No. 165 of 1985 under the provision of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are as follows : The petitioner was continuously working in the service of the First Respondent as a Planner Operator from 1. 8. 1992 upto 30. 3. 1985. The last drawn salary of the petitioner was Rs. 21. 85 per day. The petitioner was absent from work from 7. 2. 1985 to 15. 2. 1985, but had attended the office on 8. 2. 1985 at 4. 00 p. m. for collecting his salary. He produced Medical Certificate of E. S. I. Panel doctor seeking to explain his absence in which it was stated; "patient not attended my dispensary from 8. 2. 1985 to 14. 2. 1985". The petitioner again remained absent from 15. 2. 1985 to 22. 2. 1985, for which there was no medical certificate produced by him at all. During the period 26. 2. 1985 to 8. 3. 1985, the petitioner was treated at Aundh Hospital and was discharged. The relevant medical certificate from the said Hospital states that the petitioner was not fit to resume his duties until 20. 3. 1985. A further medical certificate produced by the petitioner states that he was declared fit for duty from 30. 3. 1985. Armed with this certificate the petitioner attended the work from 8. 3. 1985, but was not allowed to resume work on the ground that he had voluntarily abandoned service. The petitioner demanded reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages. The unconceded demand resulted in the industrial dispute, vide Reference (IDA)No. 165 of 1985, being made to the Labour Court, Pune. The Labour Court framed the following issues and answered them as under :

(3.) A perusal of the reasons given by the Labour Court for its findings on points 1 and 2 would indicate two facts. Firstly, that the petitioner was in the habit of remaining away from work and later covering the absence by producing medical certificates, irrespective of what they stated. The other fact established is that, in regard to the last absence, only a short period had remained uncovered by the medical certificate. During the period from 26. 2. 1985 to 30. 3. 1985, at least, he was undergoing medical treatment at the Aundh Hospital. In these circumstances, in my judgment, it was not correct to impute the intention of voluntary abandonment of service to the petitioner. In my judgment, the finding of the Labour Court on this issue is clearly erroneous and needs to be interfered with. By now, it is well established that abandonment of service is an inference which can be raised upon consideration of the totality of circumstances and that the court should raise that inference only if it is satisfied that the circumstances do indicate that he workman was clearly not interested in continuing with his service. The circumstances established before the Labour Court, in my view, though they do indicate that the petitioner was careless with regard to his service with the First Respondent, do not make out a case of voluntary abandonment of service. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.