Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1048 (MAD)

Rajendran V v. Labour Court, Madurai and Another

2001-09-11

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2001
Judgment :- K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award of the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai in ID. No. 121 of 1989, dated May 11, 1992, and to quash the same. ID. No. 121 of 1989 relates to the non-employment of the petitioner herein. The charge against the petitioner is that he had absented himself from reporting to duty from October 19, 1987. An enquiry was conducted on January 7, 1988 and award of removal was passed on April 1, 1988. As against the said order of removal, the petitioner had resorted (sic) to industrial dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the records and as regards the conduct of the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court has gone into the issue in a detailed manner and had ultimately held that the enquiry was properly conducted and delinquent has also been provided with proper opportunity to defend himself. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court as regards the conduct of the enquiry. The main objection of the petitioner herein is however as regards the reasons given by the Labour Court for endorsing the order of dismissal and consideration of the past service under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even though the learned Judge has taken note of the similar instances of absence from the years 1981 to 1987 the crux of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the very same learned Judge, in the context of the very same management, had dealt with a very similar case in I.D. No. 129 of 1990, which was decided on March 9, 1992. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, that was also a similar case in which the delinquent had pleaded that his absence was due to debts and that his absence also related to the very same period. It is also pointed out that the delinquent in that case also, had certain similar antecedent charges between the year 1981 to 1987. But, in that case the delinquent was directed to be reinstated in service without wages. It is also pointed out that the delinquent in that case also, had certain similar antecedent charges between the year 1981 to 1987. But, in that case the delinquent was directed to be reinstated in service without wages. Therefore according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no justification for having upheld the order of dismissal of service of the petitioner.The learned counsel also contends that mere absence from duty is not a grave offence so as to be inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service. In this context learned counsel refers to the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention, which is raised by the petitioner, is under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the order passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 129 of 1990. It is true that the reasons given by the respective delinquents in both the cases are to the effect that they were having lot of debts and therefore, they were forced to take leave frequently. It is also true that in I.D. No. 129 of 1990, the delinquent was charged with absence from duty and he was also found guilty of certain antecedent incidents of absenting from duty. I am unable to sustain the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In these types of cases, there cannot be a comparison between one case with the other A and the mere fact that the same Labour Court had taken a sympathetic view in the case of one petitioner, it does not mean that in all subsequent cases also the same view should be adopted. We are concerned only to find out as to whether the impugned order in respect of the present writ-petitioner is justified or not. In the present case, unlike in I.D. No. 129 of 1990, it is also seen that as regards the previous incidents, the writ-petitioner has not only been awarded with fine but on number of occasions he has also been suspended from service on earlier occasions. Therefore, that would be a point of distinction between the present case and in I.D. No. 129 of 1990. Therefore, that would be a point of distinction between the present case and in I.D. No. 129 of 1990. However, on the facts of the present case, I am not persuaded to adopt any sympathetic view considering that from 1981 the delinquent had as matter of practice was absent from duty frequently notwithstanding imposition of fine on several earlier occasions and also punishment of suspension on earlier occasions. It is necessary from the point of view of the management to maintain discipline and also to see that the production is not affected.In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the first respondent Labour Court and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.