ORDER
V. Kanagaraj, J.
1. Writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the award passed in I.D. No. 52 of 1997 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem, the first respondent herein and to quash the same passed therein dated 19.12.1997.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he was the Managing Director of the Management of Stanemore Estate; that the second respondent was initially employed as a cooly in the petitioner’s estate from 1995 as a fitter; that the second respondent behaved in a disrespectful manner towards the proprietor of the Estate during November 1996, for which a show cause notice dated 6.12.1996 was issued to him; that the second respondent disputed the allegations made against him on 13.1.1997, that the second respondent through a written communication admitted the charges leveled against him and sought for pardon, that from 28.11.1996 till he submitted a letter the second respondent also did not report for duty; that however, the management took a lenient view and permitted him to resume duty; that on 15.1.1997, the second respondent refused to do so and he also said that he would work only in the pulp house; that the second respondent refused to obey the lawful order of the superior; that on the basis of refusal, a show cause notice dated 19.1.1997 issued to him; that it may be pertinent to point out that with effect from 15.1.1997, the second respondent did not report for duty also; that the second respondent submitted a reply dated 21.1.1997 which he made serious allegations against the management; that however, the second respondent failed to report for duty, that the second respondent herein not only indulged in the misconduct of refusing to obey the lawful orders of the superior but also stayed away from work unauthorisedly, that the second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer under Section 2A of the I.D. Act alleging that he was terminated from the service of the petitioner; that the application filed by the second respondent was taken on file as I.D.No. 52 of 1997 and the petitioner was called upon to file its counter.
3. The further averments of the writ petition are that before the Labour Court, the petitioner submitted that the second respondent indulged in misconduct and would categorically deny that he terminated the service of the second respondent at any point of time, but the first respondent passed an award holding that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified and therefore, the second respondent was entitled to re-instatement with backwages and the attendant benefits and costs. He further submitted that the second respondent was not terminated from service nor did he approach the petitioner seeking employment and his conduct revealed that he was not willing to report duty which would amount to abandonment and this aspect has been lost sight of by the Labour Court and on such grounds the writ petitioner would pray to quash the impugned award passed by the Labour Court.
4. No counter has been filed by the respondent nor any representation made on his part. On the part of the writ petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on its behalf would argue to the effect that there was no question of termination, nor did it terminate the employee as it has been misconstrued by the Labour Court, nor is there any industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act; that the Labour Court has remarked that the petitioner therein did not abandon duty which is erroneous; that in spite of having received the communication, the second respondent did not either prefer to attend to work or to appear even before the petitioner and therefore, it is not at all the petitioner’s fault. Learned counsel would also point out that the second respondent has not even appeared before this Court.
5. In the light of the above arguments, in consideration of the materials made available, on applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by the writ petitioner and on a careful perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court, what it comes to be known is that the Labour Court having traced the facts and circumstances pleaded by parties in the petition and the counter has framed two points for consideration viz.,
(i) Whether the petitioner workman had voluntarily abandoned the work and went off from 15.1.97 onwards?
and
ii) Whether the management terminated the workman? If so, what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
Based on these points framed the labour Court, would order for enquiry and conduct the same in which on the part of the petitioner/workman, he had examined himself as the sole witness as W.W.1. On the contrary, on the part of the management also only one K. Vadivelu has been examined as the sole witness M.W.1. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, on the part of workman, 6 documents would be marked as Exs.W1 to W6. Ex.W1 being the show cause notice sent to the workman by the management; Ex.W2 dated 17.12.1996 being the certificate of posting sent to the
workman, Ex.W3 being the acknowledgement card; Ex.W4 dated 19.1.1997 being the letter sent to the petitioner by the management/respondent, Ex.W5 dated 27.1.1997 being the registered post sent by the petitioner to the management and Ex.P.6 being the acknowledgment card. Equal number of documents would also be marked on the part of the management as Exs.M1 to M6, Ex.M1 being the signature in the letter sent by the petitioner to the respondent dated 13.1.1997, Ex.M2 being the show cause notice, Ex.M3 being the acknowledgment card, Ex.M4 and 5 dated 17.12.96 and 13.1.97 respectively being the letters addressed by the workman to the management and Ex.M6 dated 2.6.97 being the letter sent by the Management to the workman.
6. In consideration of the pleadings in the light of the above evidence and having its own discussions on the points framed, the Labour Court would find that a different assignment has been given to the workman, who was a trained fitter and was employed in that capacity but he has been assigned with a work of a maistry which he denied to comply with. But the management did not allot any other work from 28.11.96 onwards and in these circumstances, it is relevant
to consider whether the workman abandoned the work from 15.1.97 as alleged on the part of the management.
7. Raising the said question, the Labour Court would also take stock of the allegation levelled on the part of the management that the worker/petitioner therein did not impart the required respect to the owner when he was asked to shift his residence from his place to another and moreover, he himself expressed his willingness to resign the job and went away from the same and the show cause notice issued by the management giving a time of 15 days for the workman and a reply was also sent by him. Further more, the workman was accused of having helped one Venkatesan and becoming responsible for the loss of 35 rain covers but on the part of the workman all these allegations have been denied. Assessing all these events in the light of the evidence placed on record both oral and documentary, the Labour Court would find that to prove all these allegations neither the owner of the estate Mr. M.S.P. Rajesh nor two other persons viz., Kuriagosh and Ramasamy, who are said to have known the incident of the workman talking ill of the estate owner have been examined.
8. However, the Labour Court would find from Ex.M5 that the workman has admitted his fault and for having defied the will of the owner he had also expressed his readiness to seek pardon, further agreeing to accept any residence that was allotted to him and the management also on its part had accepted the letter of apology and therefore, no more irregularity could be contemplated against the worker so far as those issues are concerned. Even regarding the refusal to work at a particular spot as alleged on the part of the management, on going through Ex.M4, dated 15.1.97 and on such discussions held on each and every allegation, the labour Court would ultimately arrive at the conclusion that it is not correct on the part of the management to come forward to allege that from 15.1.97 onwards the workman had abandoned the work and went off permanently but it was the management which refused to allot the work from 28.11.96 onwards and hence, there was no chance for any abandonment.
9. Under such circumstances, the Labour Court has not only got itself posted with the entire facts and circumstances which were pleaded by parties but also based on such pleadings, framing necessary points for determination of all questions involved in the dispute would conduct the very enquiry in the manner described by law giving full opportunities for both parties to be heard and strictly adhering to the procedures established by law and in total appreciation of the evidence in the manner aforementioned and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, has arrived at a valid decision to re-instate the workman in service with back wages in a well considered manner.
10. In the above circumstances, this Court is not able to find any legal infirmity or inconsistency or error apparent on the face of the order passed by the Labour Court or even lack of opportunity in violation of the principles of natural justice not only in the conclusion arrived at by the the Labour Court is concerned but also the manner in which the said conclusion has been arrived at and therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the interference of this Court sought to be made into the order impugned which is a well considered and merited order passed by the Labour Court is neither necessary nor called for in any manner. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that could be arrived at by this Court in the writ petition is to dismiss the same but without costs.