The absence of the workman from duty due to health reasons was not wilful, justifying the setting aside of the dismissal and entitlement to backwages and attendant benefits.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Award dated 27.03.2003 in I.D.No.522/2000 passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same in so far as depriving the petitioner backwages, continuity of service, other attendant benefits, compassionate appointment, lumpsum death benefit and other terminal benefits including pension and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner backwages and other attendant benefits by giving annual increments, pay revision, lump sum death benefits and all terminal benefits including pension.)

1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the Award dated 27.03.2003 passed in I.D.No.522/2000 by the 2nd respondent-Labour court, in so far as depriving backwages, continuity of service, other attendant benefits, compassionate appointment, lumpsum death benefits and other terminal benefits including pension in respect of workman who died during the pendency of the I.D. The petitioners further pray for a direction to the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation to pay the petitioner backwages and other attendant benefits by giving annual increments, pay revision, lump sum death benefits and all terminal benefits including pension.

2. The deceased P.Ayothi joined the services of the first respondent transport corporation as a conductor on 01.04.1981. He put 19 long years service. The workman while serving both night and day shifts, developed health problems like ulcer, diabetes and vision defects. Since he has to take care of his big family, he could not spend much amount for his medicines and treatment and so sought to refer him to Perundurai Medical college for treatment. Since the workman was affected by right eye vision defect, he was taken to Arvind Hospital, Madurai. Therefore, the workman applied for personal leave initially for the period from 26.08.1999 to 31.08.1999 and later upto 02.09.1999. The said leave got sanctioned. Again the workman had to continue his treatment in Madurai from 28.09.1999 to 15.10.1999. As such, the workman was unable to attend duty or submit leave application for the period after 03.09.1999.

3. The 1st respondent issued charge memo dated 09.11.1999 alleging that the workman was unauthorisedly absent from 03.09.1999 to 24.09.1999. Later, the first respondent also ordered for an enquiry into the charges. Though the workman replied that due to his ill health, he was absent, the first respondent ordered for enquiry and conducted two separate enquiries and also issued two separate second show cause notices. Though the petitioner explained that due to his severe and acute health disease and that as he underwent treatment for the same, he was absent, the first respondent rejected the said explanation and dismissed the workman from service by order dated 31.03.2000.

4. Against the said order of dismissal, the workman raised an industrial dispute. Since the conciliation ended in failure, he took up the matter before the 2nd respondent in I.D.No.522/2000.

5. During the pendency of the dispute, the workman became bedridden and died on 20.12.2000 after 9 months from the date of his dismissal. The legal heirs of workman were impleaded as petitioners in I.D.No.522 of 2000.

6. In the I.D., Ex.W.1 to W.9 were marked on the side of petitioners and Ex.M.1 to M.17 were marked on the side of the first respondent. But no witness was examined on both sides. After hearing the arguments, the 2nd respondent-Labour Court passed an Award dated 27.03.2003, setting aside the dismissal of the workman and directed the first respondent-corporation to treat the period of absence from 3.9.1999 to 30.03.2000 as medical leave and further directed the first respondent-corporation to pay wages and other benefits for the said period, within a period of 3 months and in default to pay the amount with 6% interest.

7. The 2nd respondent-Labour court held that the workman could not a