The failure to observe natural justice in employment termination renders it void; reinstatement must be ordered when due process is not followed.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. The petitioner, a workman, has filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in ID No. 92/2018 dated 04.12.2019, as well as the order in I.A. No. 3/2019 issued on the same date. The award was decided against the workman, and his application in I.A. No. 3/2019, seeking to summon documents from the respondent management, was also dismissed. Upon filing of the writ petition, notice was issued to the respondent on 07.02.2020. In response, the respondent management has entered an appearance through counsel.

3. The workman’s case is that he was employed as a driver, having joined service on 27.09.1999. His services was terminated illegally on 18.07.2005. This termination was subsequently adjudicated by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 15/2007. By an award dated 12.06.2013, the Labour Court held that the termination was arbitrary and illegal, directing the workman’s reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Following the award, the petitioner repeatedly sought reinstatement. However, after some correspondence, the respondent, instead of reinstating him in Chennai, issued an order dated 05.05.2014, directing him to report for duty at their branch office in Dadar, Mumbai, purportedly in compliance with the award, while also stating that the awarded sum of Rs.3,48,500/- would be provided to him.

4. On 05.05.2014, the workman sent a letter stating that the amount offered by the respondent was not in accordance with the benefits granted under the award. He also sought clarification on whether accommodation would be provided to him in Mumbai. Upon reaching Mumbai, he discovered that no employment was actually offered to him and that the transfer was merely a punitive measure. He proceeded to Mumbai solely without prejudice to his legal rights to challenge the management’s action.

5. Subsequently, the workman filed a claim statement in C.P. No. 403 of 2014 before the Labour Court, seeking back wages as per the award, along with wages accrued thereafter, totalling Rs.8,11,500/-. In response, the management filed a counter statement, contending that the workman had remained absent without intimation and, despite being directed to report for duty, had not done so. He was not employed anymore, and he had voluntarily abandoned his employment. In response to these allegations, the workman was compelled to send a letter dated 25.05.2016, stating that he was not given employment in Mumbai as there was no vehicle available there and that the officers had instructed him to return to Chennai. He had also previously written a letter on 15.05.2014, requesting employment either in Chennai or at any location within Tamil Nadu.

6. Subsequently, the workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A through his letter dated 03.05.2017. In response, the respondent submitted a reply on 17.07.2017. The substance of the management’s reply, as presented before the Labour Officer, were summarized in the failure report issued by the officer on 07.12.2017, which stated as follows:

7. Meanwhile, the Labour Court, by its order dated 30.01.2018, allowed the claim petition in C.P. No. 403/2014. The court awarded a sum of Rs.5,10,910/-, and after deducting the amount already paid, determined that the workman was entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.1,61,410/-. The Labour Court limited its scope to computing the amount in accordance with the benefits granted under the earlier award. In p