The duty of an employee to report for duty and undergo training as directed by the employer, and the obligation to seek remedies before the appropriate labor authorities as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.15512 of 2012 dated 22.10.2013 on the file of this Court.)

Dr. Anita sumanth, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. A mandamus had been sought by the writ petitioner, a permanent driver with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonm) Ltd., Trichy Region, for permitting him to join duty, providing him training, treating the period from 03.09.2012 to the date of allowing him to join duty as his duty period and paying him all benefits including wages.

2. The vehicle driven by the writ petitioner had been involved in an accident with a two wheeler resulting in the demise of the person travelling pillion in the two wheeler. A case had been registered on the file of the Kallakudi Police Station in Crime No.181 of 2012 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC as against the rider of the two wheeler.

3. The writ petitioner was suspended on 12.06.2012, which suspension came to be revoked on 12.07.2012. In the order of revocation, he was directed to undergo training for 30 days in the driving school and thereafter for 30 days in Road Transport Corporation.

4. The writ petitioner admittedly did not report for duty and claimed to have availed medical leave. The fact remains that the writ petitioner did not report for duty till 03.09.2012. He had not undergone training, ostensibly for the reason that he could not meet the cost of the training, which was a sum of Rs.550/-.

5. At the instance of this Court, the writ petitioner was permitted to undergo stimulator training and this Court has recorded in order dated 22.10.2013 that the writ petitioner had undergone training and had paid the amount of Rs.550/- for the same. As regards any other relief, the writ petitioner was directed to work out his remedies before the Labour Court in terms of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petitioner admittedly has not approached the authorities and has instead chosen to file this writ appeal.

6. Before us, the narration of events as placed before the Writ Court and recorded in order dated 22.10.2013, is reiterated. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court dated 31.10.2011 in WP(MD)No. 10778 of 2010 in V.John Lawrenso vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Rep. by it General Manager, Trichy Region, Trichy in support of the prayer in the writ petition.

7. We find the facts of the matter in the case of V.John Lawrenso supra to be distinguishable from those in the present case. In that case, the bus driven by the writ petitioner had been involved in an accident. Though that petitioner had reported for duty, he had been denied employment. Thus it was not a case of absence from duty, as in the case of the writ petitioner before us.

8. In the present case, the fact that the writ petitioner had reported for duty only on 03.09.2012 and had not undergone stimulator training, is admitted. It is only at the instance of the Court, that the writ petitioner underwent the training at all.

9. Thus, we find that the case of V.John Lawrenso does not advance the case of the appellant. This Writ Appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.