When a Labour Court finds that charges against a workman are unproven, it must award backwages and continuity of service unless strong evidence supports denial.

ORDER :

These Writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed in I.D. No.220 of 2010 dated 09.01.2014 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem, wherein the workmen, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.27934 of 2015 and 2nd respondent in W.P. No.14332 of 2015 has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Salem and the Labour Court has partly allowed the industrial dispute and reinstated the workmen and denied backwages and continuity of service. Therefore, both the workmen and the Management have preferred these present Writ petitions.

2. The Writ petitioner in W.P. No.14332 of 2015 hereinafter will be referred to as 'Management'. The Writ petitioner in W.P. No.27934 of 2015 hereinafter will be referred to as 'workman'.

3. The short facts necessary to dispose of these Writ petitions are as follows:-

The workman was employed as driver in the Management Corporation. When he was working as Junior Tradesman, due to Jaundice and ulcer, he was unable to attend duty from 05.09.2005 and went to his father-in-law's house for taking Siddha treatment. After the treatment was over, he returned for work, but the Management had not allowed him to join duty. In the meantime, the disciplinary proceedings were also initiated and after enquiry, the workman was removed from service through order dated 26.04.2007. According to the petitioner, the charge memo has not been served to him and no enquriy proceedings were informed to him and without his presence, the enquiry proceedings were conducted. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute against the order of dismissal from service and the conciliation officer submitted his failure report and thereafter, the same was taken as industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No.220 of 2010. Before the Labour Court, on the side of the workman, no witnesses were examined and one document was marked and on the side of the Management, 4 documents were marked. After analysing the evidence adduced on both sides, the Labour Court directed the Management to reinstate the workman into service without backwages and continuity of service. The above said order has been challenged by both the Management as well as the workman.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the workman would submit that he had joined in service under the Management in the year 1996 and he was made permanent as Junior Tradesman with effect from 06.01.1997 and thereafter, he was working in Hosur Town Depot. While so, due to his illness of Jaundice, he was unable to attend the work from 05.09.2005 and he was taking treatment in his father-in-law's house and thereafter, when he approached the Management for duty, he was not permitted. Without serving the charge memo and without any explanation, the Management conducted enquiry in the absence of the petitioner and dismissed him from service through order dated 26.04.2007. Even according to the charge memo, without any prior permission, the petitioner was on unauthorized leave with effect from 05.09.2005. In respect of repeated representations, the request of the workman was not considered for reinstatement. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute and the conciliation officer has also filed failure report. Therefore, an I.D. No.220 of 2010 was raised before the Labour Court, Salem. The Labour Court, though came to a conclusion that the charges have not been proved and ordered for reinstatement, failed to award backwages and continuity of service with all other attendant benefits. Therefore, the order with respect to denial of backwages and continuity of service, is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Management would submit that the wo