RAMESH RAMCHANDRA GAWAD Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in writ petition No. 760 of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") was in the employment of the first respondent therein (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") as a mazdoor. He was a permanent workman. According to him, he was unwell and, therefore, proceeded on leave from 18th March, 1979 to 24th March, 1979 for which he had sent two medical certificates to the Company but unfortunately he was arrested by the police at his native place on 24th March, 1979 as a suspect in a murder case. He was in jail during pendency of the murder trial and was ultimately acquitted by the Sessions Court on 9th January, 1980. Thereafter he approached the Company with a request to allow him to resume duty. He also showed a certified copy of the judgment of the Sessions Court acquitting him of the murder charge. However, the Company sent him a letter on 27th March, 1980 that his name was struck off from the muster roll of the Company as he was treated having abandoned his services. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the second respondent presiding over the Sixth Labour Court at Bombay for adjudication in the matter of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) The Reference was resisted by the Company on the grounds that they did not know that the workman was in jail from 24th March, 1979 to 9th January, 1980. They also denied having received any medical certificate from the workman. They, however, admitted that they received one medical certificate dated 17th March 1979 on 30th March, 1979. They contended that the workman had absented from work from 18th March, 1979 and the company sent a letter to him on 21sy March, 1979 asking him to report for duty immediately but the workman did not and, therefore, they sent another letter dated 29 March, 1979 informing him that his name was struck off from the muster-roll as he had abandoned the services. The company admitted that the workman did make a representation on 10th March, 1980 for his reinstatement but on 27th March, 1980 he was informed that his request could not be granted. According to the Company, no employer could wait indefinitely for a workman to resume duly particularly when there was no communication from the workman regarding his absence. The Company mainly contended that the workman remained absent without permission and his name was correctly struck off from the muster-roll as he had abandoned the services.

(3.) On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion that the workman had not voluntarily abandoned the service and that the termination of the service was illegal, improper and unjustified. He was, therefore, entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but not back wages because in the opinion of the learned Labour Judge the Company cannot be saddled with backwages for no fault of theirs. He accordingly by his award dated 30th November, 1983 directed the Company to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and rejected the claim of the workman for back wages, in Reference (IDA) No. 633 of 1981.