Back
M. S. RAMESH, C. KUMARAPPAN
K. Venkatachalam – Appellant
Versus
Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. RAMESH, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 03.01.2024 made in W.P. No. 15351 of 2019.
1. Heard Mr.S.Navin Prabhu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Aswin, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent.
2. On the ground that the appellant, who was employed as a Driver in the respondent-Management, had remained unauthorizedly absent since 21.09.2012, charges came to be levelled against him on 01.11.2012 and during the course of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had held the charges to have been proved against him, through his inquiry report dated 29.01.2013. After issuing a second show cause notice, he was terminated from service on 09.04.2013. The order of termination was challenged before the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D.No. 77 of 2014. The Labour Court had allowed the Industrial Dispute on 18.09.2018 and ordered the Management to reinstate the workman into service. In the award, the period of his absence was directed to be treated as 'no work no pay'. The Labour Court has also ordered the Management to regulate the said period of absence, as well as the period of inquiry between 21.09.2012 and 10.01.20
Unauthorized absence must be proven as wilful misconduct by the Management; failure to do so invalidates termination.
An employee's failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings and present a defense undermines any subsequent claims of justification for absence, leading to the affirmation of dismissal.
Dismissal of workmen for unauthorized absence deemed unjustified; compensation awarded instead of reinstatement due to age of superannuation, emphasizing fairness in domestic enquiries.
The court upheld the termination of a workman for unauthorized absence, ruling that the enquiry was fair and the management adequately proved the misconduct despite the workman's claims of unfair tre....
Unauthorized absence without prior permission may amount to misconduct, and the principles of natural justice must be complied with in conducting an enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial D....
Discretion under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously; compassion cannot be the basis for modifying penalties in labor disputes involving misconduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
