SARAT CHANDRA PATRA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Swain, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (workman). He submits, impugned is order dtd. 27/6/2016 rejecting his clients claim on entitlement, made under Sec. 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for encashing earned leave of 64 days. Finding by the labour Court that his client was not entitled to receive any dues from the management, is perverse.

(2.) He submits, his client was entitled to have his leave commuted, to be applied against his absence on medical grounds, notwithstanding the period having been extended. Instead, the management wrongfully sanctioned earned leave and thereby disputed his client's claim before the labour Court. His client's leave of half pay was to be commuted, without drawing from his earned leave. In the circumstances, it was a claim on entitlement for encashment of 64 days of earned leave. Impugned order be interfered with and relief be given to his client.

(3.) Mr. Chhinchani, learned advocate appears on behalf of the management and submits, the workman's application for commuting his leave could not be allowed as there was insufficient leave of half pay to his credit. In the circumstances, there was sanction of earned leave. It would appear from record in impugned order that the workman was paid more than what was due to him, on earned leave remaining to his credit. At the material time the workman was aware of the situation and did not challenge sanction of earned leave, on his prayer for commuting leave, to be applied against his absence.