HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD Vs. M SATAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises from the order of Ramanujulu Naidu J., modifying the award passed by the Labour Court and granting full backwages and other attendant monetary benefits to the writ petitioner on reinstatement.

(2.) The Factual background to the case is as follows: The Writ petitioner was working as a radio-wirer in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited since 24-2-1969. From, 1-12-1978 he was ill and under treatment at E.S.I., Hospital, Sanathnagar and Nizam's Orthopaedic Hospital, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. He was sending weekly certificates from the E.S.I., authorities for extention of the period of earned leave. On 18-2-1979, the company issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he was deemed to have abandoned the employment as he did not give any explanation for his absence from 3-2-1979 to 18-2-1979. Subsequently on 21-2-1979, the earlier order of 18-2-1979 was cancelled presumably on receipt of the E.S.I., certificates for the said period of absence. The petitioner continued to send the medical certificates as he continued to be ill. On 26-5-1979, the company again sent another letter informing him that he was deemed to have abandoned the service for being absent without permission from 16-4-1979 onwards. The writ petitioner replied by letter dated 2-6-1979 that he continued to be sick and had sent E.S.I., certificates by certificate of posting and he is prepared to furnish duplicate copies. The company accepted that his absence for the period from 16-4-1979 to 23-4-1979 was explained with reference to such certificates, but refused o consider the period from23-4-1979 to 25-5-1979 as properly explained. By letter dated 31-7-1979, the company rejected the request of the writ petitioner for reinstatement. The petitioner, thereupon, sent the duplicate certificates for the period from 23-4-1979 to 25-5-1979, but the company refused to consider the same and rejected his request again on29-8-1979. His further requests were also turned down by letters dated 3-12-1979 and 8-5-1982, the matter was takenup by the Union and a failure report was submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on29-4-983.There upon theGovernment by G.O.Ms.No.l050,dated 8-7-1983 referred the following question for adjudication by the Labour Court: Whether the termination of services of M.Sataiah, staff No.1684, Ex.workman by the Management of H.A.L., Hyderabad is justified? The writ petitioner filed a claim-statement on 24-2-1984 stating the above facts and claiming reinstatement with full backwages from 26-5-1979 along with other attendant benefits. The company referred to Standing Order No.l3(b) for the contention that the absence for more that ten days without justifiable cause resulted in deeming the petitioner to have abandoned the employment. It was also pointed out that the writ peti tioner was not really sick but managed to get the medical certificates and since he did not report for duty and explain his absence, his services should be terminated. The Labour Court found that certificates had been given for the sickness for seven days from 16-4-1979 by Ex. W-4 which was contrary to Ex. M-19 which showed that the petitioner was found fit to join duty on 16-4-1979. He also noted that both the certificates had been issued by the Director of Medical Services and there was no such contradictory certificate for the period subsequent to 22-4-1979. Since he found that there was nothing to doubt the certificate given for the period 23-4-1979 to 25-5-1979, which was the period not accepted by the company, the Labour Court held that the order of discharge was contrary to the provisions of section 73 of the Employees State Insurance Act and, therefore, illegal and it was accordingly, set aside. However, the Court was of the view that the petitioner had not pleaded that the order of termination was contrary to section 73 of the E.S.I. Act and, therefore, it was not proper to allow backwages, even though such backwages would have been allowed if that plea had been taken.

(3.) The writ petitioner-workman, therefore, challenged that order. The learned single Judge observed that having held that the order of termination of the petitioner was in flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 73 of the E.S.I. Act, the Labour Court ought to have awarded backwages which could not be denied only on the ground that the plea based on section 73, was not taken. The learned Judge held that ignorance of Law on the part of the petitioner could not be a ground to deny him of what he is legitimately entitled to. He, therefore, modified the award passed by the Labour Court, by granting full backwages and other attendant monetary benefits.