The central legal point established is that prolonged absence without evidence of sanctioned leave may amount to abandonment of service, as per established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the award dated 16.09.2009 made in I.D.No.407 of 2004, which was received by the petitioner on 26.11.2009 and quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records relating to the award dated 16.09.2009 made in I.D.No.407 of 2004, which was received by the petitioner on 26.11.2009 and quash the same.

2. The petitioner will be referred to as the Management and the second respondent will be referred to as the workman.

3. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the entire evidence on record held that it was the Management that prevented the workman from attending duty on 16.03.2002 and therefore the oral termination from service on 16.03.2002 without proper enquiry was illegal and unsustainable. The Labour Court therefore directed the reinstatement of the workman, with continuity of service and full backwages along with cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the Management has filed the above writ petition.

4. It is the workman's case that in a family feud he sustained injuries and was hospitalised in St.John's Medical Hospital, Bangalore. It is his further case that from 19.10.2001 till 15.03.2002 he underwent treatment, and that he applied for leave alongwith the Medical Certificate through his co-employee and the same was permitted by the Management. According to the workman as the management permitted leave his absence could not be treated as unauthorized. He further stated that when he reported for duty on 16.03.2002, after completion of treatment, he was denied entry by the Management. As the Management orally terminated his services without notice or enquiry, he raised the dispute.

5. On the other hand the Management's case is that it was the workman who voluntarily abandoned the service. Further in spite of the notices sent by it to the workman requesting him to report for duty on 23.11.2001, 12.12.2001, 21.03.2002 and 05.03.2002, he neither replied nor reported for duty. Hence, as the workman abandoned duty, there was no necessity of notice or an enquiry. According to the Management only in case of unauthorized absence enquiry was mandatory and not in case of abandonment of service.

6. The crux of the matter is whether the case is one of abandonment of service or one of unauthorized absence. In case of abandonment of service as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Management there is no necessity of enquiry, but if it is a case of unauthorized absence then the workman would be entitled to notice of enquiry and enquiry should be conducted.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court's findings on facts were perverse as the Labour Court did not appreciate Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 in a proper prospective. Further the Labour Court erred in its appreciation of the Management's documents which showed that this was not a case of unauthorized absence but one of abandonment of duty. The learned counsel therefore submitted that as the finding of the fact of the Labour Court is perverse this Court should interfere with the same.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the Labour Court's appreciation of facts was unassailable. According to the counsel it is not a case of no evidence, but of sufficiency of evidence or appreciation of the evidence, therefore this Court cannot under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interfere with the Award. In short the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the award of the Labour Court is based on evidence and as such no interference is called for.

9. I have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the entire materials on record.

10. It is seen from the records that the Labour Court relied on Ex.P2 to Ex.P5, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 to hold that it was a case of unauthorized absence and therefore in the a