A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu was approached by a workman who wasn’t able to attend duty or submit a leave application for some period after his medical leave. His services were terminated.
Post his demise, his legal representatives approached the court to direct appropriate compensation. The court held that on medical grounds, the workman should be treated as deemed to be in service till the date of his death.
Brief Facts:
The deceased P. Ayothi joined the services of the first respondent transport corporation as a conductor and served for 19 years. The workman while serving both night and day shifts, developed health problems like ulcers, diabetes, and vision defects. Since he has to take care of his big family, he could not spend much amount for his medicines and treatment and so sought to refer him to Perundurai Medical College for treatment. Since the workman was affected by a right-eye vision defect, he was taken to Arvind Hospital, Madurai. Therefore, the workman applied for personal leave initially for the period from 26.08.1999 to 31.08.1999 and later up to 02.09.1999. The said leave got sanctioned. The workman was unable to attend duty or submit leave application for the period after 03.09.1999.
The 1st respondent issued a charge memo alleging that the workman was unauthorisedly absent from 03.09.1999 to 24.09.1999. Later, the first respondent also ordered for an enquiry into the charges. Though the workman replied that due to his ill health, he was absent, the first respondent ordered for enquiry and conducted two separate enquiries and also issued two separate second show cause notices and dismissed the workman from service by order dated 31.03.2000. Against the said order of dismissal, the workman raised an industrial dispute. Since the conciliation ended in failure, he took up the matter before the 2nd respondent in I.D.No.522/2000.
The learned Judge held that due to unauthorised absence, back wages cannot be granted. However, taking note of the medical records exhibited during the trial, the learned Judge pointed out that the period of absence can be treated as a leave period if he is eligible for the same. The learned Judge pointed out that on such consideration, salary for the said period and other benefits can be extended to the legal heirs of the deceased workman. The learned Judge concluded that the legal heirs/petitioners are not entitled to any other relief sought for by them.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The petitioners contended that they were not given monetary benefits as per the Award, petitioners made repeated representation and lawyer's notice to the 1st respondent/Transport Corporation to pay wages and other admissible benefits and also PF, gratuity, and pension. However, after adjusting the period of absence as leave, the first respondent paid only a sum of Rs.901.37. The first respondent, by letter dated 11.08.2004 informed that the workman had taken a sum of Rs.78,003/- from the Employer's Contribution of PF, therefore, the remaining balance sum of Rs.7,407/- in the workman's PF account was fully adjusted towards PF Loan.
Further, it was stated that the entire sum of Rs.40,816.95 payable to the family of the workman was totally adjusted towards the PF loan and that in fact the petitioners/legal heirs were to remit a balanced amount of Rs.29,775.05 within a week time. Aggrieved by the said action of the 1st respondent, the petitioners are before this court.
Observations of the Court:
The court held that it is an undisputed fact that due to his continued treatment, the laborer could not attend duty and so the absence was proved as not willful. The findings of the Labour Court were that due to medical grounds, he was absent and accordingly, set aside the dismissal order passed by the transport corporation.
In such view of the matter, the workman should be treated as deemed to be in service till the date of his death. As a natural consequence, the workman was entitled to full back wages and all other consequential and attendant benefits, to which he is entitled. In the light of such observation, the first respondent was directed to work out the monetary benefits to which the petitioners, being the legal heirs of the workman are entitled and shall pay the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The decision of the Court:
The petition was allowed.
Case Title: P. Ayothi and others vs The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and anr
Coram: Justice J. Nisha Banu
Case No.: Writ Petition No.33086 of 2005
Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. V. Ajoy Khose
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. R. Babu
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
