LI Network
Published on: 7 September 2023 at 17:25 IST
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka issued a notable order on August 31, 2023, directing the reinstatement of a former employee, along with associated benefits, in a case concerning unauthorized absence from work.
The order has garnered attention for its compassionate approach to the matter.
The case centered around the termination of Mr. Sri T. Narsimhulu, who had served as a Conductor for a Hyderabad-based corporation since August 1, 1986.
His employment was terminated on July 12, 2006, citing unauthorized absences from work between March 5, 2006, and March 23, 2006, as well as irregular attendance.
Unfortunately, Mr. Narsimhulu passed away on November 16, 2006, following a period of ill health. In response, his widow filed a dispute, requesting that her husband’s service be considered continuous from the date of his removal until his demise, along with all associated benefits, as he had remained unemployed during this period.
The Labour Court-III subsequently issued an award that set aside the removal order dated July 12, 2006, directing the respondents, the employer in question, to calculate Mr. Narsimhulu’s service from the date of his removal, excluding the period of unauthorized absence, up to the day of his passing. However, the award stipulated that back wages would not be applicable.
The respondents, contending that the Industrial Dispute was not applicable due to Mr. Narsimhulu’s status as a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, challenged the decision and argued that the charges against the deceased were justified.
In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the Tribunal’s decision to exclude the period of unauthorized absence was improper, asserting that Mr. Narsimhulu should have been granted continuity of service until his death.
In a compassionate and well-reasoned judgment, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed, “Admittedly, the workman went on sick leave and soon after undergoing surgery on 18.01.2006, he was advised bed rest and thereafter, on 16.11.2006, he died due to ill-health. It is, therefore, clear that the workman suffered a severe health setback and was confined to bed until his death.
In those circumstances and in view of the observation of the Labour Court that the charged absence, though unauthorized, was neither willful nor negligent, this Court, taking a lenient view, inclines to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner.”
Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, with the court directing the respondents to calculate Mr. Narsimhulu’s service from the date of removal until his death, inclusive of all associated benefits payable to the petitioner.
The order specified that back wages would not be awarded.
