Chairman, Manappuram Group of Companies and Employer, Manappuram Printers, Valappad, Thrissur v. N.R. Chandran

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ## OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2012 IN ID NO.35 OF 2011 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD ## PETITIONER: THE CHAIRMAN, MANAPPURAM GROUP OF COMPANIES AND EMPLOYER MANAPPURAM GROUP OF COMPANIES AND EMPLOYER, MANAPPURAM PRINTERS, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR SRI.JINU JOSEPH SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL ## RESPONDENTS: 1 N.R.CHANDRAN NADUVIL HOUSE, CHITTISSERY POST, THRISSUR, PIN-680 301. 2 THE SECRETARY INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. BY ADV M.KABANI DINESH THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 2 : ## JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Public Ltd. Company and a NonBanking Financial Company, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad pursuant to a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government. The Tribunal found that, there is denial of employment to the 1[st] respondent worker by the management and awarded compensation to the 1[st] respondent equivalent to two year’s salary including usual allowances on the basis of his last drawn pay and allowances, in lieu of reinstatement. It was also declared that the 1[st] respondent is entitled to receive all terminal benefits as if he has continued in service without any break. OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 3 : 2. The claim of the 1[st] respondent is that he was denied employment by the management. According to him, he was on medical leave from 04.12.2010 and he had undergone an operation on his right buttock. Though he submitted leave letter with medial records, he was not permitted to join duty. The denial of employment is illegal and unjustifiable and he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. 3. The reference under Section 10(1)d reads as ## follows:- “Whether there is denial of employment to Sri. N.R. Chandran, Naduvil House, Chittissery Post, Thrissur by his employer, i.e. the Chairman, Manapuram Group of Companies and Employer, Manappuram Printers, Valapad, Thrissur? 2. If yes, what relief he is entitled to get?” OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 4 : 4. The case of the management is that the workman was not denied employment, but, he abandoned the work without any valid reason. Even though he was transferred to Chennai, he did not join duty. Thus, there is abandonment of duty without valid reason. 5. The workman contended that he was transferred to Chennai as part of the victimisation. Accordingly, it is contended that there is denial of employment and he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service with full back wages. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1[st] respondent was examined as WW1 and the Senior Production Manager was examined as MW1. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal found that the 1[st] respondent was OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 5 : a skilled permanent worker with the management and was on ESI leave from 06.12.2010 to 31.12.2010. After the leave, he was not permitted to join duty. The management contended that the 1[st] respondent was transferred to Chennai and he did not report for duty at Chennai and has thus abandoned the job. The Tribunal found that the worker made several attempts to join duty but the management did not allow him to join duty and the management could not prove that the worker had abandoned the duty without valid reasons. The Tribunal observed that no disciplinary action was taken against the worker by the management for lapse of duty and there is no explanation forthcoming from the management on what basis they transferred the worker to Chennai, if he had already left the job voluntarily. OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 6 : The Tribunal also found that the transfer order was passed during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before the District Labour Officer. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that there is denial of employment by the management. However, as regards the claim for reinstatement, the Tribunal observed that the workman and the management are not on good terms and the workman, during cross-examination, has stated that he is not interested in continuing with the management establishment. Therefore, the Tribunal found that it is impracticable for the worker and the management to work as a team in future. Accordingly, the Tribunal found it just and reasonable to order reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed directing the management OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 7 : to pay the worker full back wages including usual allowances from 03.01.2011 till the date of payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to two years' of salary including usual allowance on the basis of last drawn pay and the allowances drawn by the worker. The Tribunal also ordered that the worker is entitled to receive all terminal benefits as if he had continued in service without break. 5. The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 award has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Transfer is an incidence of service and the 1[st] respondent was duty bound to join duty at Chennai pursuant to transfer and having not joined duty, he has abandoned the work. Therefore, it is contended that there is no denial of employment. It OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 8 : is also contended that award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement is arbitrary and is disproportionate and contrary to settled legal principles of law and that the Tribunal went wrong in relying on the decision in O.P. Bhandari v ITDC (1986 II-LLJ 509). The Tribunal has, on the basis of evidence, found that there is denial of employment by the management. This court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of fact by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent cannot function harmoniously as a team in the management establishment. The 1[st] respondent has also deposed that he is not interested in continuing with the establishment. The Tribunal took note of these factors while moulding the reliefs and ordered compensation in lieu of OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 9 : reinstatement. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said decision of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ OP(LC) NO. 3811 OF 2012 : 10 : ## APPENDIX OF OP(LC) 3811 /2012 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2012 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 3.10.2011. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY.