DECISION These are to cross-appeals filed by the Management and the worker of Tapal Tea Company.
2. The facts are more or less admitted. The worker absented himself on 6-2-1992 and informed the office on telephone regarding his illness. After 10 days i.e. 16-2-1992 the worker reported for duty but he was not allowed to join duty and was directed to produce Medical. Certificate of illness. He appeared on 17-2-1992 and submitted certificate which showed that he was suffering from Chicken Pox and was fit to resume duty from 16-2-1992. Ordinarily a patient of Chicken Pox is not certified fit for duty within such a short the as he is still capable of transferring the infection to fellow workers. The authenticity of the Certificate has been doubted on the ground that it is from a Private Medical Practitioner instead of a Social Security Hospital Doctor since the workman was entitled to free treatment at such hospital.
3. The learned Labour Court found that the workman was absent' from 6-2-1992 to 15-2-1992 but on 16-2-1992 he reported for duty though he was not allowed to enter the premises without a Medical Certificate. The Standing Order 15(3)(e) defines the misconduct as absence without leave for more than 10 days. In this case it was absence for 10 days only and on the 11th day the worker reported for duty, therefore, technically the misconduct is not complete but on the question of leave on medical grounds the worker should have followed Standing Order 8. Standing Order 8 under which if he desired to obtain leave he had to apply to the employer in writing alongwith Medical Certificate during the period of absence. He only applied on expiry of the leave period, therefore, although he could not be said to be guilty of misconduct under 15(3)(e) he has not behaved in a manner which can be termed as above board.
4. Under the circumstances the Labour Court has not allowed him the back benefits which he cannot claim as of right. I accordingly maintain the order of the Labour Court and dismiss both the appeals.