The judgment emphasized the discretionary jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the limited scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.8275 of 2017 on the file of this Court.)

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8275 of 2017, dated 18.11.2019, in interfering with the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.30 of 2013, dated 16.02.2016.

2. The appellant/employee joined service of the second respondent-Management (Transport Corporation) as Conductor in the year 1989. For his unauthorised absence from duty from 25.05.2011 without prior intimation/permission, a charge memo dated 14.06.2011 was issued, treating it as misconduct falling under the Certified Standing Orders of the second respondent-Corporation. Not satisfied with the explanation, domestic enquiry was conducted, wherein the charges have been held to be proved.

3. After issuance of the second show cause notice, the order of dismissal from service was passed on 23.04.2012, along with one month''s salary. Questioning the order of dismissal from service, the appellant/employee raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.30 of 2013 after failure of conciliation was adjudicated by the Labour Court and an Award was passed in the said industrial dispute on 16.02.2016.

4. Even though the Management has referred to the gravity of the proved charges and the past record of service of the employee, the Labour Court, without considering the same, ordered reinstatement of the employee, with continuity of service and without back-wages. Though the employee did not challenge the fairness of the enquiry, finding has been rendered by the Labour Court on the fairness of the enquiry. We feel that it is inappropriate for the Labour Court to render a finding on the fairness of the enquiry, when it has not been questioned.

5. Coming to the merits of the matter, the Labour Court has categorically held that though the employee has not intimated the employer and has not taken permission before going on leave, there cannot be any wilful absenteeism, as he has produced documentary evidence, namely the medical certificate to show that he was un-well. The Labour Court referred to Ex.W-2, which is the additional explanation dated 24.03.2012 of the employee, along with a copy of the medical certificate, and came to the conclusion that the employee was un-well and that the charges are not proved. That apart, it was observed that for the absence of the employee, the employer ought not to have dismissed the employee from service.

6. Assailing the Award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant/employee filed W.P.No.8275 of 2017, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the employee has preferred the present Writ Appeal.

7. From a reading of the Award of the Tribunal, it is clear that the employee has not intimated the employer about his absence. There are three aspects in this issue, namely (i) no prior intimation; (ii) not taking prior permission and (iii) absence from duty. However, there is no charge with regard to the wilful absence of the employee. The factum of absence is not in dispute. That apart, neither prior intimation was given, nor prior permission was obtained. The Labour Court has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that there was no wilful absence and the absence was on account of the ill health, as could be seen from Ex.W-2, along with the Medical Certificate produced by the employee and the same has been reflected in paragraph 14 of the Award, relevant portion of which reads to the effect that,

8. Moreover, unless the findings of the Labour Court are perverse, the Labour Court''s Award cannot be interfered with. In this case, we find that there is no perversity in the impugned Award of the Labour Court, more so, when there is no wilful absence. It is no doubt true that the past record of the employee is bad. The