The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P2 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. Ext.P2 is an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in a dispute between the representative Union and the Management, wherein the following issue was referred for adjudication:
“Whether the denial of employment to Sri.N.P. Varghese bowl washing worker, C.L. Factory, Karikulam Division, Mooply Estate, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., Palappilly P.O., by the management is justifiable? If not, what relief he is entitled to get?”
2. Admittedly, during the pendency of the dispute the workman was proceeded against, for unauthorised absence for the period; during which the present dispute arose. The enquiry proceedings concluded in the dismissal of the workman and the Management effected the dismissal after complying with section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. The instant dispute was with respect to the denial of employment to the workman. No claim statement was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, hence, took the complaint filed by the Union before the Conciliation Officer, as the claim raised. The specific claim raised by the Union was that the workman was a ‘bowl washing worker’ and he was only obliged to work the second and third shifts. The morning shift, being the first shift, could not have been allotted to the workman at all. The work arrangement made by the Management, directing the workman to report at the Factory, was akin to a denial of employment, was the specific contention raised by the Union.
4. The workman, however, in his deposition took a contrary stance claiming that he had appeared before the Management to work in the first shift and that he was asked to get the permission of the Group Manager and hence there was a denial of employment. The Tribunal rightly noticed the contrary stance taken by the Union and the Management. The contention of the Management that all workmen are appointed as a general worker and the work arrangement is within the exclusive domain of the Management remained uncontroverted. In such situation, the Tribunal found that there was no denial of employment as such. The Tribunal directed reinstatement without back wages. The Tribunal clearly found that the workman was responsible for having remained absent from work and hence declined back wages as also continuity of service. This Court does not find any infirmity in such order passed.
5. The petitioner’s apprehension is that the continuity of employment granted to him will be declined in the reference made against the dismissal of the worker.
The continuity of service would definitely be a question to be considered in the reference made from the Order of dismissal. The Industrial Tribunal had clearly found that the workman had returned to work in the first shift and hence he had voluntarily kept himself away from work. Hence, refusal to grant any benefit of wages for the period he kept himself away from work. Definitely, back wages cannot be granted for such period.
The Writ Petition hence, would stand dismissed with the above observation.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. To Judge jjj