The petitioner, who is the owner of a theater, is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court granting compensation to the workman, which was computed as the monetary benefits due for the period from 22.10.1993 to 31.12.2000, as if the workman had continued in employment. 2. The brief facts leading to the dispute is that, the workman was a door keeper in the petitioner's theater. The petitioner is said to have remained absent from 04.08.1993 onwards. A charge sheet was issued inter alia alleging unauthorised absence. The petitioner sent a charge memo to the 2nd respondent on 16.08.1993, but he neither responded to the charge sheet nor turned up for employment. On 22.10.1993 a registered communication was issued to the 2nd respondent and produced herein as Ext.P2, which was produced before the Labour Court as Ext.M5. In the notice, the unauthorised absence of the workman was highlighted and arrears of salary was also paid by way of a cheque. The workman presented the cheque without demur, but then revised a dispute which eventually resulted in a reference and the dispute being agitated before the Labour Court.
3. The Labour Court by Ext.P3 found that, when a charge sheet was issued, it was incumbent upon the management to conduct a domestic enquiry. The Labour Court also found that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had received the charge sheet. This Court on perusal of records found that a memo of charges said to have been issued on 16.08.1993, was produced as Ext.M8. The same was issued under certificate of posting, which was produced as Ext.M5. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that, for reason of there being no evidence of the service; the workman could not be said to have received the notice.
4. In any event, the finding of the Labour Court was that, having issued a charge sheet, the normal consequence was to conduct a disciplinary enquiry and the findings thereon alone could result in a punishment. It was hence, the Labour Court granted a monetary benefit in lieu of reinstatement.
5. On a perusal of Ext.M5, which is produced at Ext.P2, it is clear that even after the issuance of the charge sheet, in which one of the charges was the unauthorised absence, the workman neither replied to the same nor reported for duty. The proceedings with respect to an earlier closure was relied on by the Labour Court, which according to this Court, could not be relied upon since, that was not with reference to the present termination. It is seen that after issuance of the charge sheet, in August 1993, the management after almost two months issued a letter indicating that the petitioner has absented himself from employment and thereby abandoned work.
6. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the petitioner could have been granted any reinstatement. In any event, it is to be noticed that the petitioner admittedly has around 9 years of service in the theater. It is not very clear as to the exact salary, which was paid to the employers. Looking at the statement filed by the petitioner as directed by this Court, the theater itself was closed on 03.05.2000. At the time of closure, there were three employees and a person, who had a total service of 6 ½ years, is said to have been paid an amount of Rs.5,950/-. It is noticed that the compensation paid in the year 2000 was almost 7 years after the alleged termination of the workman, in the dispute, which is the subject matter of the writ petition.
7. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that an order of payment of Rs.5,000/- would substantially compensate the workman, insofar as the benefits due after service of 9 years. The workman is found to be a person who had abandoned work. The management shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- within a period of two months from today to the workman and the award of the Labour Court would stand modified, to that extent.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB