AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Company challenging the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.8.2001,
made in I.D. No. 189 of 1999.
It has been stated that the first respondent had joined the petitioner Company at Coimbatore, on 19.3.83. While so, in the month of July, 1998,
he had absented himself from duty without applying for leave and without obtaining the prior permission from the management of the petitioner
Company. Thus, the first respondent was unauthorisedly absent from duty, from 10.7.98. After having been absent from duty for more than 15
days, he had reported for work only on 27.7.98. Therefore, the management of the petitioner Company had taken a decision to terminate the first
respondent from service for his unauthorised absence from work for more than 15 days. Accordingly, the first respondent had been served with
the termination order, on 27.7.98. Even though the first respondent had received the termination order without any protest and without seeking for
a domestic enquiry, he had raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 189 of 1999. The second
respondent Labour Court had set aside the termination order and directed the reinstatement of the first respondent with continuity of service,
backwages and all other attendant benefits, by its award, dated 27.8.2001. In such circumstances, the petitioner Company has filed the present
writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated
27.8.2001, in I.D. No. 189 of 1999, is arbitrary, against the weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The Labour Court ought to have
considered the fact that the first respondent had absented himself from duty for more than 15 days, from 10.7.98 till 26.7.98, unauthorisedly, and
that he had deserved such a punishment. Further, during the month of June, 1999, the Coimbatore Office of the petitioner Company had been
closed and all the employees were given three months notice, as well as the salary due to them. Therefore, the award of the second respondent
Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of the first respondent in the service of the petitioner Company, is illegal, and it cannot be sustained in the eye
of law. Further, since the petitioner company is not in existence from the month of June, 1999, the order reinstating the petitioner in service cannot
be implemented. In such circumstances, the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.8.2001, made in I.D. No. 189 of 1999, is
devoid of merits.
No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent employee. However, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first
respondent had submitted that the second respondent Labour Court had come to the right conclusion that the dismissal of the first respondent from
the services of the petitioner Company, is illegal and void. Therefore, the second respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated
27.8.2001, directing the reinstatement of the first respondent, with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. The second
respondent Labour Court had rightly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction, u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in granting the award in
favour of the first respondent. Since the petitioner Company had passed an order for the alleged unauthorised absence of the first respondent,
without giving a show cause notice to the first respondent and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case, the said order is clearly
contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the second respondent Labour Court had rightly set aside the said order and
ordered the reinstatement of the first respondent in the services of the petitioner Company, with continuity of service, backwages and other
attendant benefits.
In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the first respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is
of the considered view that the petitioner Company has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the
second respondent labour Court, made in I.D. No. 189 of 1999.
The second respondent Labour Court had found that the management of the petitioner Company had alleged that the first respondent had been
absent from duty, unauthorisedly. However, no notice had been given to the first respondent by the management of the petitioner Company. No
enquiry had been conducted and no opportunity was given to the first respondent to defend himself. In such circumstances, it is clear that the order
passed by the management of the petitioner Company, dismissing the first respondent from service, is contrary to the provisions of law, as well as
the principles of natural justice. Therefore, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances, this Court is not persuaded
by the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Company to interfere with the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated
27.8.2001, made in I.D. No. 189 of 1999. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.