IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
M. Jayaraman – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Second Addl. Labour Court High Court Compound Chennai – Respondent
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 plea
Dismissal of workmen for unauthorized absence deemed unjustified; compensation awarded instead of reinstatement due to age of superannuation, emphasizing fairness in domestic enquiries.
Unauthorized absence must be proven as wilful misconduct by the Management; failure to do so invalidates termination.
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....
The termination of employment must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement depending on the circumstances.
Discretion under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously; compassion cannot be the basis for modifying penalties in labor disputes involving misconduct.
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....
The inquiry into the dismissal was deemed unfair and resulted in a one-time compensation of Rs.2,00,000 to the legal heirs instead of reinstatement due to procedural lapses.
The court emphasized the distinct nature of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D. Act, and the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India....
The court established that procedural fairness is essential in disciplinary inquiries, and failure to adhere to this can render dismissals invalid.
The court established that a fair domestic enquiry and proportional punishment for habitual unauthorized absence from duty are essential under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the burden o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.