The respondent was appointed as Badli Conductor and disciplinary enquiry was companyducted against him with regard to his unauthorized absence from duty.
Placing reliance on the medical certificates produced and the reasons assigned for his absence the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to re instatement as Badli Conductor and order of his removal was number justified.
The charge framed against the workman about his unauthorized absence from duty intermittently for a long period of time has number been companysidered by the Labour Court while passing the award.
The Labour Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that since the medical certificates were submitted , he should number have been removed.
After recording evidence of the parties the Labour Court came to the companyclusion that the absence from duty on the part of the respondent was on account of ill health and indisposition .
Factual scenario is almost undisputed.
The same was withdrawn and dispute under Section 10 1 C of the Act was raised which was referred to the Labour Court, Bangalore.
Order of Labour Court was challenged before the High Court.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that being Badli worker the question of any protection under the Act does number arise.
Admittedly, his name was struck off on 19.12.1995.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
His name was ordered to be removed from the list of Badli Conductors by order dated 19.12.1995.
Challenge in this writ petitions was to the award passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore setting aside the order of removal of the respondent hereinafter referred to as the workman and directing his re instatement with companytinuity of seniority in the list of Badli Conductors but without back wages.
