The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in modifying the punishment into one of compensation, and the limitations of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, on private sector employers.

The Writ Petition is filed by the workman challenging an award passed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.277 of 2010 dated 19.5.2007. By the impugned award, the Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-as compensation in lieu of his reinstatement and declined to grant any other relief.

2. The Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 20.10.2007. Since the petitioner has not filed all the documents available before the Labour Court, this Court summoned the original records from the Labour Court. Accordingly, the Registry has summoned the records and circulated for perusal by this Court. On notice from this Court, the 1st respondent entered appearance through counsel and also filed a typed set containing the documents to show that the management has been never unfair with the petitioner.

3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner joined the 1st respondent management on 27.4.1994. The petitioner was suffering due to chronic illness and for sometimes he had unauthorisedly absented from duty. Subsequently with effect from 15.6.1998 he did not report for duty despite the management sent reminding letters on 26.6.1998.

4. Therefore, the charge memo was issued on 17.11.1998. Since no worthwhile explanation was forthcoming, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the management. The petitioner instead of attending the enquiry, wrote to the management that he was not in a position to travel to the enquiry at the Headquarters, since he did not have finance. Therefore, the management sent Rs.25/-towards travelling expenses for attending the enquiry. Even though the petitioner was receipt of the money, instead of attending the enquiry, he wrote that a further amount of Rs.500/- may be paid to him towards his meeting other expenditure by a letter dated 18.6.1999. The enquiry was adjourned on several dates, namely 10.7.1999, 10.8.1999, 28.8.1999, and 18.9.1999. Thereafter as the petitioner did not turn for for the enquiry, exparte minute was recorded and the enquiry officer gave his report dated 6.10.1999.

5. Based upon the report, the 1st respondent management issued a second show cause notice on 29.11.1999. The said document is marked by the petitioner himself as Ex.W.29. In that, the management after holding him guilty of the misconduct requested him to join duty as a last chance. It was thereafter the parties are at variance on the said issue. While the petitioner stated that he went to report for work but he was prevented from entering into the management premises, the management in the termination order dated 17.12.1999 took the stand that he never reported to work in the company on the specified dates. In any event, he was terminated from service by order dated 17.12.1999 and along with the termination order, one month pay was also issued to him.

6. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of termination raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer at Vellore. The Conciliation Officer, as he could not bring about mediation between the parties, gave a failure report dated 10.5.2000. On the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the 2nd respondent Labour Court dated 29.6.2000. The said claim statement was registered as I.D.No.277 of 2000 and notice was issued to the management. The management filed a counter statement dated 4.11.2000.

7. Before the Labour Court, the workman filed the entire enquiry proceedings and other documents, which were marked as Ex.W.1 to W.47. On the side of the management, 9 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.9. Ex.M.6 to Ex.M.9 are all Attendance Registers for the relevant period to show that the petitioner was absent and Ex.M.4 was the warning letter given to him for his previous misconduct.

8. The Labour Court on the basis of these materials came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper. Thereafter, on the basis of the recorded evidence, the Labour Court reco