Dismissal of workmen for unauthorized absence deemed unjustified; compensation awarded instead of reinstatement due to age of superannuation, emphasizing fairness in domestic enquiries.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

All these Writ Petitions are connected and taken up and disposed of by this common order.

2. Two Workmen are involved in this case. The Workman – M.Jayaraman joined the services of the Management in the year 1973 as Driver. While so, due to the hospitalisation of his son and daughter on account of an accident, he had taken leave on 25.02.1997. On the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent for a period of 8 days, a charge memorandum was issued on 15.05.1997. The explanation was not acceptable and domestic enquiry was conducted. The charge was held to be proved in the domestic enquiry and by an order dated 08.01.1998, he was dismissed from service. Therefore, the said Workman raised a dispute. Conciliation failed. Claim Petition was taken on file as I.D.No.326 of 2000. The Claim Petition was resisted by the Management.

3. It is the case of the Management that the Workman was unauthorizedly absent, when he was allotted duty as Driver. Due to his absence, the public will be affected and the bus could not be operated. In these cases of unauthorised absence, even though it is for a short period, the charges are serious in nature.

4. With the above pleadings, the Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry, the Workman examined himself as W.W.1 and no documentary evidence was marked on his behalf. On behalf of the Management, one Ethiraj was examined as M.W.1 and Exhibits M.1 to M.10 were marked. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties and found that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. It considered the fact that only on account of the accident that happened to the son and daughter of the Workman - Jayaraman, he was not present for duty and that his version that he informed the time keeper and left the workplace and was absent for eight days is believable. Accordingly, it was held that the non-employment was unjustifiable, considering only the fact that the workman had attained the age of superannuation and was already 60 years old as of the date of the award. Instead of reinstatement with back wages, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded.

5. As far as the second Workman Mr.Govindasamy is concerned, he had since passed away, pending the Writ Petition, his legal heirs viz., his wife – Pushpa and three others have been substituted as the Writ Petitioners.

6. The Workman – Govindasamy joined the Management as a Conductor in the year 1978. While so, it is his case that he fell ill and could not report for duty from 21.12.1997 and orally informed the concerned authorities that he will be availing medical leave. Since, he could not submit a leave letter in advance, he submitted a letter on 06.01.1998, enclosing the medical certificate. However, when he reported for duty on 09.01.1998, a charge memorandum was issued. He submitted his explanation denying the charges. Domestic enquiry was conducted and on 01.08.1998 holding that the Workman was guilty of the charge. Thereafter, the Workman was removed from service on 09.03.1999. He raised a dispute, conciliation failed.

7. The Claim Petition was taken on file as I.D.No.81 of 2002. The claim was resisted by the management, stating that when the workman was unauthorizedly absent, operations in the management, such as the present case, could not proceed, which would result in serious prejudice to the public. Therefore, the charges were of a serious nature. With the above pleadings when the Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry, the Workman examined himself as W.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of him. On behalf of the Management one N.A.Maran was examined as L.W.1 and Exhibits M.1 to M.14 were marked.

8. The Labour Court thereafter considered the case of the parties and held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. Further, it found that on the basis of the evidence on record, it is clear that the Workman prayed for leave and after the leave period, he had reported for work and therefore, held that the punishment im