Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.1.2006, made in C.P.No.400 of 2004

2. By its order, dated 27.1.2006, the second respondent Labour Court had directed the petitioner management to pay a sum of Rs.58,456/- to the first respondent, as the amount due to her, as salary. The petitioner management has stated that the first respondent had been appointed as a writer in the petitioner management school, which is a minority institution. The monthly salary of the first respondent had been fixed at Rs.4104/-. Thereafter, she had been re-appointed. She is governed by the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu.

3. While so, she had absented herself from duty, without prior permission, from 6.6.2003. In spite of the reminders sent by the petitioner management requesting her to report for duty, there was no response from her. Instead, she had been sending telegrams to the management of the petitioner school, requesting for extension of leave. Even though no leave had been granted to her, she did not join in duty. She did not produce the necessary medical certificate, within the time limit prescribed, as per the conditions of service applicable to her. Thus, she had violated Article 2 of Appendix VII of the Code of Matriculation Schools. Thereafter, she did not return to work. However, she had raised a dispute before the Labour Officer, Salem, claiming reinstatement in the service of the petitioner management, with backwages. Since, the conciliation proceedings had failed, she had filed C.P.No.400 of 2004, under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming a sum of Rs.60,456/-, as backwages, from June, 2003 to July, 2004.

4. The Labour Court, Salem, without considering the fact that the service of the first respondent was governed by specific statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Code of regulations for Matriculation Schools, had allowed the claim of the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner management has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner management had submitted that the order of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.1.2006, made in C.P.No.400 of 2004, is arbitrary illegal and void. It is contrary to the provisions of the Code of regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu. The second respondent Labour Court had committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner management was liable to pay the salary to the first respondent employee for the period of her unauthorised absence. The second respondent Labour Court had not considered the fact that the first respondent had absented herself from duty, without the authorisation of the petitioner management and without producing the necessary medical certificate, in accordance with the service rules applicable to her. The second respondent Labour Court had accepted the claim of the petitioner management, in spite of the fact that the first respondent had admitted that the petitioner management had asked her to join in duty on 3.11.2003. Further, the second respondent Labour Court ought to have held that the first respondent should have filed an appeal, under Section 22A of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools. Therefore, the order of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.1.2006, made in C.P.No.400 of 2004, is liable to be set aside.

11. Further, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner management that the first respondent ought to have availed the appellate remedy, under Section 22.A of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, cannot be sustained. It is seen that the said provision would apply only in cases where a punishment is imposed on the person concerned. As such, it would not apply to the present case, which has arisen due to the non-payment of the salary due to the first respondent, who is a non-teaching staff of the petitioner school. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner management cannot be countenanced. Since, the writ petition is devoid of merits, it stands dismissed. No costs.