1. The writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.61 of 2005 dated 11.6.2007, by which while dismissing the dispute raised by the petitioner under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was held by the Labour Court that the removal of the petitioner by the management from service is legal and justified.

2. The petitioner was an employee of the second respondent, Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) Limited as Industrial Worker Grade-II, appointed on 21.9.1996. The

Standing Orders for the workmen of NLC Limited certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 would apply. The petitioner is stated to have applied for leave between 3.2.1998 and 5.2.1998, which was sanctioned and he had to report for duty on 7.2.1998 since 6.2.1998 happened to be a weekly off.

a. It was due to the sudden sickness of the petitioner at Chennai, he was admitted in the Government Royapettah Hospital, where it was found to be jaundice and he could not join duty on 7.2.1998. It is stated that he sent leave application on 16.2.1998 seeking leave from 7.2.1998 to 21.2.1998, stated to have been received by the second respondent on 17.2.1998. Since the petitioner had to extend his treatment, he sent a leave letter on 4.3.1998 for extending the leave from 22.2.1998 to 15.3.1998 and that was also received on 5.3.1998 and thereafter, he continued to be under treatment and he sent leave letters periodically on 17.3.1998 for the period from 16.3.1998 to 25.3.1998, on 2.4.1998 for 26.3.1998 to 15.4.1998 and on 23.4.1998 for 16.4.1998 to 5.5.1998 and on 11.5.1998 for 6.5.1998 to 30.6.1998 and along with the letter dated 11.5.1998 he also sent medical certificates for the period from 7.2.1998 to 30.4.1998 and from 1.5.1998 to 30.6.1998.

b. Even after 30.6.1998, he was compelled to continue treatment and therefore, he sent another letter on 30.6.1998, seeking extension of medical leave from 1.7.1998 to 9.8.1998 along with medical certificate. Again, since he was in a bad condition and unable to join duty on 9.8.1998, he gave subsequent letters also. It is stated that medical certificate so sent, was signed by the doctor without date. According to the petitioner, he has not received any letter from the second respondent dated 11.2.1998.

c. It is stated that no charge memo dated 19.3.1998 was received by the petitioner. However, the second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and sent a communication on 13.5.1998, fixing the date of enquiry on 23.5.1998 on the charge memo dated 19.3.1998 and that was forwarded to him by way of redirection to his Chennai address, which was received by him only on 26.5.1998. In the meantime, it is stated that the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the domestic enquiry on 23.5.1998.

d. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer adjourned the enquiry to 6.8.1998 and informed the same to the petitioner by communication dated 25.5.1998. According to the petitioner, such communication was not received and therefore, the petitioner could not appear for the enquiry on 6.8.1998. Finally, the enquiry was posted on 24.6.1998 and in that regard, a communication was sent to the petitioner’s Neyveli address, where the petitioner was not residing since he was taking treatment at Chennai. Once again, the letter sent to the Neyveli address was returned as unserved with an endorsement, “door locked” and the letter sent to the petitioner’s native place was redirected to his Chennai address which he has received on 23.6.1998 and immediately, the petitioner sent a letter on the same date stating that he was ill and he was not able to appear for enquiry with a request to postpone the enquiry for 15 days.

e. It is also stated that the petitioner authorized one Viswanathadas to represent him. It is stated that the petitioner’s representative Viswanathadas and two others met the Enquiry Of