AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
A driver in the respondent-Public Road Transport Corporation having absented from duties w.e.f. 7.2.2004 to 13.7.2004 and reported to duty on 14.7.2004 was issued with an articles of charge dt. 15.3.2004 served on 16.3.2004 to which a reply dt. 14.7.2044 was submitted, inter alia contending that by telegrams dt. 10.2.2004, 19.2.2004, 28.3.2004 and 1.9.4.2004 sought leave of absence, due to illness, and thereafter participated in the domestic enquiry into the charge of unauthorized absence whence the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charge proved, following which the disciplinary authority by order dt. 21.7.2006 terminated his service. That order when called in question invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short ID Act'' registered as ID 4/2007, the Respondent-corporation entered appearance, filed counter statement, seeking to justify its action of terminating the petitioner from service. Labor Court by order dt. 16.10.2008 answered the preliminary issue holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. There afterwards, having regard to the material on record, by award dt. 4.3.2009 declined to accept the case of the petitioner that his absence was due to illness for which he was under medical treatment and accordingly rejected the reference.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absence from duty when intimated to the Corporation in the telegrams noticed supra, on the ground of ill health, since, under medical treatment of a Sr. Surgeon at Govt., Ramanagara, who issued the medical certificate Ex.M16 certifying that the petitioner was suffering from Viral Hepatitis with Chronic Deodenal Ulcer and required rest for the period from 7.2.2004 to 13.7.2004, being relevant material was admissible evidence not accepted by the Labor Court.
Having perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, undoubtedly Ex.M16 though admissible in evidence was not considered by the Labor Court merely because the doctor''s prescription and bills for having purchased medicine were not produced and the doctor not examined. It is no doubt true that the medical records if summoned from the government hospital, Ramanagar, it would have come to light as to what was the treatment extend to the petitioner, the nature of illness and the period of rest. That effort was not done by the petitioner before the Labor Court or before the Enquiry Officer since the enquiry is held valid. Therefore, it was not a case of no evidence but some evidence to justify remaining absent.
The Labor Court having held the domestic enquiry as fair and proper is required to consider the material on record only i.e. material placed before the domestic enquiry and not other evidence placed before it for the first time, except to establish victimisation. Nevertheless in order to do justice it is necessary to permit the petitioner to summon the authorities of the Ramanagar government hospital to speak to the alleged medical records relating to the treatment extended to the petitioner in that hospital during the period of absence and if found to be true, requires a consideration over that evidence and if on the other hand, there are no medical records, then in that event it is for the Labor Court to assess the acceptance of Ex.M16 as admissible evidence or otherwise and to pass an award.
In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The award impugned is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh after extending an opportunity to the petitioner to summon the records from the Govt. Hospital, Ramanagaram and thereafter to pass an award in accordance with law and in the light of the observations supra.