The proportionality of disciplinary actions and the fairness of the enquiry procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act are paramount in addressing service disputes.

COMMON ORDER

The W.P.No.6814 of 2021 is filed challenging the award dated

30.10.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem in I. D. No.

95 of 2014.

The W.P.No.8005 of 2024 is filed challenging the consequential award dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Salem in C.P. No 61 of 2022, computing the arrears of wages.

2. The brief factual background in which these Writ Petitions arise is that the respondent – Workman was working as a Driver in the petitioner - Management. It is alleged that the Workman stopped reporting for work with effect from 26.03.2011. The petitioner – Management directed the Superintendent / co-employee to visit the Workman and inspect his residence and submit a report. When the co-employee visited the residence of the Workman, he stated that he was affected with jaundice and now, he is getting better and that he will report for work. However, upon enquiry in the local village, an information was given that the workman is having a Tata Ace mini van and a tractor and is also running a tea shop and therefore, he is not reporting for work. Thereafter, a charge of unauthorised absence was served on him and after conducting the domestic enquiry, the charge was held to be proved.

3. The Management after considering the 13 earlier punishments/indictments received by him, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and thereafter an approval was sought for. The approval was also given. Thereafter, the present I.D. 95 of 2014 was raised under Section 2 A(2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The Workman contended that the Management is interested in dismissing all the regular employees and engaging the daily wage employees and therefore, this is nothing but victimisation. It is further contended that the procedure adopted in the enquiry is incorrect and no proper opportunity was given to him. He was suffering from jaundice and through the co-employee, he tried to inform about his absence and prayed for leave. Without granting the leave, the proceedings was initiated.

5. The Industrial Dispute was resisted by the Management. It was stated that from 26.03.2001, the workman was unauthorisedly absent from duty. Upon inspection, it was found that since he was running a tea shop and having his own business by running a Tata ace and other vehicles, he was not reporting for duty. Thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued. After due enquiry, the punishment was imposed. The earlier details of punishments imposed on the Workman which included the punishment for unauthorised absence, was detailed in the counter statement. In the counter statement, it was specifically prayed that if the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the procedure adopted is unfair, the Management is willing to adduce evidence on merits in paragraph 13 of the counter statement.

6. Under the said circumstances, the Workman examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the documents in Exs.P.1 to P3. One Mohan Kumar and Ravichandran were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and the documents in Exs.R1 to R7 were marked on behalf of the Management. Thereafter the Labour Court considered that when the Workman was suffering from jaundice, it should not have been treated as unauthorised absence and considering the fact that the Workman was working for more than 15 years as permanent employee held the non employment as unjustifiable and directed reinstatement of the Workman with continuity of service, back wa