WA/1387/2026 of The Management of Vs V.Babu on 10 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) The respondent, V. Babu, a Technical Assistant in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation remained absent and failed to report duty from 04.09.2012. For his unauthorised absence between 04.09.2012 and 09.11.2012, disciplinary proceedings was initiated and he was dismissed from service. The said dismissal order was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court in I.D.No.50 of 2014 and the said dismissal order was confirmed by the Labour Court vide order dated 19.10.2016. Against which, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the High Court and the Labour Court award was set aside and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and material documents.

2. In the course of the de novo enquiry, on the side of the petitioner/workman, the failure report was filed as Ex.P1 and on the side of the respondent/management, 13 documents were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R13. Out of which Ex.R3 dated 09.11.2012 requisition letter by the petitioner/workman to the respondent/management seeking leave enclosed with a medical certificate and Ex.R4 dated 01.11.2012 for the same purpose were considered by the Labour Court and found that the absence of the workman was not wilful to warrant disciplinary proceedings and dismissal. Hence, allowed the petition and set aside the order of the dismissal dated 16.11.2013 directed the management to reinstate the petitioner with back-wages. The order of the Labour Court dated 24.07.2019, challenged by the management in W.P.No.4667 of 2021.

3. On considering the submissions placed by either side, the writ petition filed by the management was dismissed with the following observations:- “14.The only ground on which the petitioner’s service has been terminated is that he has been unauthorizedly absent from duty on 04.09.2012. The respondent has filed Exs.R3 and R4 which are accompanied by the medical certificates as also Ex.R12 would clearly show that the petitioner was in a poor health condition and therefore was unable to attend the work. That apart, his mother has also been in a poor state of health. Though the petitioner had clearly and categorically made the statement on receipt of the charge memo, it appears that the same has not been taken into consideration by the respondent-management which thereafter rushed into holding a domestic enquiry. Therefore, the only ground on which the termination had taken place appears to be totally incorrect. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court that the dismissal order is arbitrary has to necessarily be upheld and the order passed by the Labour Court is confirmed in I.D.No.50 of 2014. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

4. Against the dismissal order, the intra-court appeal has been filed by the management with the delay of 161 days.

5. This Court, on considering the reason stated for the condonation of delay and hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, condoned the delay and directed the Registry to number the appeal.

6. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation submitted that the requisition letter filed by the workman along with the medical certificate, which was marked as Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 were not submitted before availing the leave. It was sent only after absenting himself without intimation the said representation with medical certificate was sent by the workman as an afterthought. Hence, it has no persuasive value for consideration. However, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge relied upon two documents to condone the misconduct of the respondent/workman, abstaining himself from reporting duty without any intimation.

7. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the respondent/ workman submitted that the unauthorised absence is the cannot be a reason ipso facto for dismissal from service, unless the absence is proved to be wilful and unexplained. In this case, the workman has submitted a medical report intimating the management about the illness and disability to report duty. Without considering the representation and the medical report capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed by the management. Hence, the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly interfered in the arbitrary order of dismissal.

8. The learned counsel also submitted that in compliance with the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent was reinstated into service from 22.06.2020 and he is continuing his service. However, there is a dispute regarding the pay difference.

9. On examining the rival contentions, in the light of the documents produced, we fully concur with the view of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge. Mere absence from duty is not sufficient to terminate the employee, unless there is proof to show that the absence was wilful and without any reason. In this case, the medical report proves the absence of the respondent is neither wilful nor without reason. Furthermore, the representation and the medical certificate sent by the workman during his period of absence have been ignored totally by the management. Hence, the removal of the workman for his absence from 04.09.2012 to 09.11.2012 is apparently without application of mind.

10. From the record, we find that the respondent/workman joined service under the appellant/management in the year 1986 and he had been in service for 16 years. His absence for the period over and above three months, that too for the medical reason has not been properly appreciated by the management in the domestic enquiry. His previous misconduct of similar nature if any can also not be a sufficient ground for dismissal unless he is charged for habitual unauthorised absence. Hence the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. If the respondent has any monetary claim against the management, he has to workout his remedy before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) (E.MANOHARAN,J.) 10.09.2026 ari Index:yes/no Neutral citation:yes/no

Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND E.MANOHARAN,J. ari Writ Appeal No.1387 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.12810 of 2026 10.09.2026