S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The appellant hereafter called “HT Ltd.” appeals against a judgment of the learned Single Judge which upheld the Award of the Labour Court that found, in a reference, that the termination of one (late) Mr. Arun Kumar’s services was illegal.

Brief Facts

2. Late Mr. Arun Kumar, who is represented in this appeal by his legal heirs, was not a workman as ordinarily understood in labour law and was employed as a working journalist within the meaning of the Working Journalists & Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (“The Working Journalists Act”). Under Section 3 of The Working Journalists Act, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since Late Mr. Arun Kumar (hereafter referred to as the “workman”) was employed as a working journalist with HT Ltd., the dispute around termination of his services was referred to the Labour Court.

3. The workman was employed by HT Ltd. as an employee with effect from 01.12.1973. Almost fifteen years into his employment, he was posted as a Special Correspondent to the North-East Region at Shillong on 10.08.1988. On 15.12.1990, he sent a telegram to HT Ltd.’s head office at New Delhi seeking privilege leave from 26.12.1990 to 19.01.1991. While the appellant denied receiving such an application in its submissions before the Labour Court, in the list of dates and events submitted in CWP No. 3465/1993pending reference in the Labour Court, the appellant claimed that the workman remained absent beyond the period of leave originally granted to him. Based on the averments and materials, the Labour Court held that the appellant was deemed to have admitted the receipt of application for leave till 19.01.1991 and to have granted leave till then. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with this finding of fact and we are also not inclined to interfere with this finding in our jurisdiction over this letters patent appeal.

4. The workman claimed before the Labour Court that he had made a railway booking for his return from Delhi to Shillong for 17.01.1991. He went to the railway station but could not board the train as he started feeling unwell and headed back to his house in Delhi. His diagnosis showed that he was suffering from acute diabetes and abscess of the liver, on the basis of which, he was advised to rest. It is his case that he sent news of his sickness through a colleague of his and that such informal communication of sickness followed by a medical leave certificate was an accepted practice at his workplace. The receipt of such informal communication and such practice being acceptable were both denied by the appellant. However, it is undisputed that on 07.03.1991, the appellant received a medical leave application w.e.f. 20.01.1991along with a medical certificate from the workman. Though HT Ltd. claimed that the certificate was not genuine, it did not hold any enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the medical certificate or give any opportunity to the workman to establish its credibility. Instead, the appellant issued a letter of termination, dated 20.03.1991 to the workman, which was served to him on 23.03.1991. The ground for termination, as is undisputed, was abandonment/desertion of services by the workman. In response to the letter of termination, the workman sent a letter, dated 25.03.1991 to the appellant protesting his termination and asking the appellant to withdraw the letter of termination. Not paying any heed to the letter sent by the respondent protesting his termination, the petitioner issued a public notice in Hindustan Times newspaper on 29.03.1991informing the public about the termination of the workman’s employment with HT Ltd.

5. The dispute of termination of the workman’s employment was referred to the Labour Court. The appellant submitted t