The court emphasized the principles of natural justice in employment disputes, necessitating disciplinary procedures for termination or absence claims.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stated to be workmen under the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent herein. They allege that they have been denied employment, on account of which the 4^th respondent Union raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Kollam. The 1^st respondent, Labour Court, having passed Ext.P1 award, deciding the issue against the petitioners, they have instituted the captioned writ petition. 2. I have heard Smt. A.K. Preetha, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In spite of service of notice, 3^rd respondent is not represented.

3. The 2^nd respondent in the writ petition has since been deleted from the party array, since an attempt to serve notice on the said respondent failed. However, the 3^rd respondent, who is the Managing Partner of the firm in which the petitioners were stated to have been working, is in the party array. The petitioners contend that they were denied employment with effect form 16.09.2015. However, the Labour Court issued the award Ext.P1, essentially finding that the contention raised by the Management that the case is one of abandonment of service requires to be accepted.

4. I have perused the award passed by the Labour Court at Ext.P1 elaborately. This Court notices that the Labour Court has considered the contentions raised by the petitioners with reference to the reply filed by the Management, as regards the various dates from which the petitioners are alleged to have remained absent. The findings in the award of the Labour Court is essentially to the effect that the petitioners have remained absent from various dates. But the Management has never raised any contention before the Labour Court to the effect that, on the basis of such unauthorised absence, any sort of disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioners herein. Various documents produced before the Labour Court were also not admittedly with reference to any show cause notice as regards the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that merely on the basis of the stand taken by the Management that the petitioners were unauthorisedly absent, the contentions raised by the petitioners are not to be rejected. This is especially so, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. , [(1993) 3 SCC 259] wherein it has been found by the Apex Court that there cannot be any automatic termination from service and the principles of natural justice are embedded with respect to Labour Law also. Therefore in my opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Labour Court. So as to facilitate the afore, Ext.P1 award is set aside.

There will be a direction to the Labour Court to consider the matter afresh with specific reference to the observations in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-