The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha [for brevity “the Tribunal”], insofar as denial of backwages.
2. The petitioner is the workman and the 2nd respondent is the Management. Admittedly the petitioner remained absent from 11.03.1993 onwards. The petitioner's contention was that the petitioner had been on leave, due to the illness of his relative and that he had filed an advance leave application. The petitioner contends that after three months, when he reported for duty, the Management denied him employment.
3. The Management, however, contended that the petitioner had abandoned employment and had gone abroad and he was absent from duty for nine months.
4. The assertion of the petitioner that he had been absent for three months and the contrary statement made by the Management that the petitioner was absent for nine months cannot WP(C).No.36754 of 2004 - 2 -
obviously be verified. The Management also did not produce any document to prove that the workman had gone abroad. The Tribunal after considering the minimal evidence adduced and the deposition of the parties, found that the workman is entitled to reinstatement; however, without backwages, in lieu of which a compensation of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees five thousand] was awarded. The petitioner contends that, he is entitled to backwages; he having been terminated illegally.
5. It is to be noticed that there is no dispute that the petitioner had left on leave without getting sanction of leave. The petitioner admits that he was on leave for three months. Hence, the petitioner would have reported for duty some time in June, 1993 and if the petitioner was denied employment, then he ought to have initiated conciliation proceedings within a reasonable time. The present dispute has been referred only in the year 1999; after six years. The petitioner's contention is that one Union which had taken up the cause of the petitioner had abandoned the same in the midst of the conciliation talks and the petitioner had to resort to the aid of another Union. It is trite that a dismissed workman could WP(C).No.36754 of 2004 - 3 -
always approach the Conciliation Officer and seek for a reference of the justifiability of the termination even without the junction of the Union. In such circumstance, it can only be found that the petitioner was recalcitrant and not diligent enough in prosecuting the proceedings. It is also significant in the year 1998 the petitioner has received the entire Provident Fund dues which he was entitled to, from the Management. In such circumstances, this Court, sitting in the confined jurisdiction of looking into the award passed by the Labour Court, is not at all satisfied that any interference is called for in this writ petition. This Court is of the opinion that the award does not warrant any modification.
The writ petition is dismissed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
vku.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )