The failure to provide light work to an employee, leading to an implied discharge, constitutes a termination of service under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue the Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.581 of 2008 and quash its award dated 31.01.2017.)

The award dated 31.01.2017 passed in I.D.No.581 of 2008 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/management contended that the petitioner/Estate deploys males and females, who all are provided with the quarters near the Estate. Husband of the second respondent was also employed in the petitioner’s company. The second respondent absented herself from attending work with effect from 18.10.2004, citing her ill health. It is contended that the second respondent made an attempt to leave the service of the writ petitioner/company by claiming the monetary benefits and under those circumstances, the writ petitioner referred the second respondent to undergo the medical examination before the competent medical board of the Government Hospital. On 08.01.2007, the Medical Board of Coimbatore, Medical College & Hospital opined that the second respondent was fit for work. However, in the said medical opinion, the competent medical board had stated that on sympathetical ground, the second respondent may be provided with light work. Relying on the recommendations of the Government Medical Board, the second respondent insisted the petitioner/Management that she should be permitted to work and must be provided with light work by letter dated 13.08.2007. The petitioner informed the second respondent that there was no scope for light work in the Estate and she should report for work immediately. The second respondent failed to report for work and instead, raised an industrial dispute alleging that her service was terminated by the writ petitioner/Management on 18.10.2004 and again from 09.01.2007.

3. The above dispute was adjudicated before the first respondent in I.D.No.581 of 2008 and by award dated 31.07.2017, the first respondent has held that the dismissal of the second respondent was not justified and that the petitioner should pay her compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). Thus, the writ petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent states that even during the relevant point of time, the second respondent was aged about 50 years and she was ill and was not in a position to perform work in the Tea Estate. Under these circumstances, as per the direction of the writ petitioner/Management, she attended the Medical Board and the Medical Board also recommended that the case of the second respondent is to be considered for providing light work in the writ petitioner – Company. The writ petitioner – Company did not accede to the recommendation and contrarily not allowed the second respondent to attend duty and no such light work was provided.

5. Under these circumstances, it is to be construed that the service of the second respondent was terminated by the writ petitioner/management and therefore, there is no infirmity as such in the award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner sustained the contentions and cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of “Mercury Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and others” reported in 2001-I-LLJ 1214” in paragraph No.6 of the judgment which reads as follows :-

6. Having perused the materials and after hearing the learned counsel for either side, I am of the view that the plea of the petitioner, deserves acceptance for more than one reason. Under Section 2-A of the Act, an individual workman is entitled to raise an industrial dispute in the event of the employee’s dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise terminating the services of the individual workman. A clo