In one case, the Karnataka High Court has held that the mention of `dismissal' in the charge-sheet will not mean prejudicing the matter particularly when explanation was tendered, second cause notice issuedafter enquiry before passing an order for dismissal.

Whether any obstruction in employer's business is justified on the part of workers on strike?
During strikes, the striking workers can neither compel the willing workers to join the strike nor can they obstruct the work being carried on by the employer with the aid of either the willing workers or some other workers freshly recruited. The strikers are, no doubt, entitled to peaceful picketing during the strike. But they cannot participate in acts of any sort, or resort to disorderly conduct, with a view to pull the management to harassment or loss in the business. Where the workmen deliberately cause obstruction to supervisory staff, it has been held that such a dereliction cannot be condoned and the refusal of employment to such workmen must be held to be justified.

The Madras High Court has also held that the striking employees have no right to prevent or obstruct other workers and customers from having ingress or egress out of the factorypremises. Also they have no right to cause obstruction in the movement of the goods.

In another case, Rajasthan High Court has held that to exonerate the workman from the misconduct will not be justified on the part of the Labour Court keeping in view the gravity of seriousness as the workman not only instigated the workers to resort to strike but indulged in physically obstructing the workers imposing his will on other workmen.

Our factory is covered and registered under the Factories Act. I seek following clarifications:
(i) A worker has applied for one month's leave eg, September 1 to September 30. For how many days will he be treated on leave?
(ii) A worker applies for one week's leave whereas one Sunday eg, off day and another holiday, Diwali, fall within one week. How many days of leave will be calculated?
(iii) A worker applies for leave commencing from Saturday till Monday. Sunday being off day, for how many days leave will be calculated?
(i) Section 79 of the Factories Actdeals with annual leave with wages whereas Explanation 2 to the said section provides that the leave admissible under sub-section (1) of the Act shall be exclusive of all the holidays whether occurring during or either at the end of the period of leave. Thus such holidays and off days of the factory will be excluded from one month while calculation of leave.
(ii) Since a worker cannot be required to work on Sunday which happens to be the off day, Sunday and festival holiday will be excluded.
(iii) Under the given facts, leave will be treated for two days.

What steps have to be taken if a delinquent employee refuses to accept the charge-sheet?
In case the employee refuses to accept the charge-sheet, the guidelines have to be taken from the Civil Procedure Code vide Order 5 Rule 17. It has been held by the Tribunal that if a worker avoids to receive a notice on the plea that it does not contain his full name, then the management is not bound to adopt other mode of effective service, such aspublication of the charge in the newspaper. It has been held by the Supreme Court that charge-sheet sent by registered post if received back unserved, then it should be published in some newspaper. However, when a worker refuses to accept the charge-sheet when sent by registered post, then the management can proceed with further action, presuming that the service of the charge-sheet on the employee has been effected. It has been held by the Supreme Court that when a registered envelope is tendered by a postman to the addressee, but he refuses to accept it, there is due service effected upon the addressee by refusal. The addressee must, therefore, be imputed with knowledge of the contents thereof and this follows upon presumptions that are raised under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 114 of the Evidence Act. In another case the Supreme Court has held that when a charge-sheet is not being served by post and the postal remarks on the envelope sent by the registered post contain `notfound', it will be imperative on the part of the employer to publish the same in a newspaper which should be popular and likely to be read by the public in the area or locality where the concerned employee lived.

Can an employee be dismissed for dishonesty/fraud?
Acts of dishonesty and/or fraud certainly constitute misconduct of a serious nature, which not only attracts dismissal, but much else as legal consequences. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a bus conductor guilty of collecting fare from passengers and pocketing even Rs 9.70 Paise will be liable to be dismissed since it will amount to serious misconduct.

In another case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that dismissal of a bus conductor for not issuing the tickets to the passengers though the bus travelled 15 km will be justified. The Supreme Court has also held that dismissal of an employee for misconduct in presenting false medical bills will be justified. In another case, Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that aperson who has secured job by producing bogus certificates fraudulently and dishonestly has no place in public employment and mere passage of time does not cure vice of fraud and dishonestly.

When can an employer dismisses his employee for absence from duty?
Absence from duty for a short period or for a day or two is not an offence serious enough to merit dismissal but during the period of his duty if a workman leaves the premises without permission and does so repeatedly, then it becomes a serious misconduct and he may be punished and even discharged.

In one case, the attendance record of the workman established that he was chronic defaulter. He has not given up the habit of attending office at his convenience and then behaving in arrogant manner. His removal from service was held not to be harsh as held by the Kerala High Court.

The dismissal of a `workman' guilty of habitual absence will be justified. In another case, the Madras High Court has come with a categorical judgment in this regardwhich says that if an employee has lost the confidence of the employer due to habitual and frequent absence from duties, his dismissal by the management will not be unjustified. It has further held that if the Labour Court orders for the reinstatement of the employee, it would perpetuate the ruptured feeling between the parties which would be harmful for both. Again in yet another case, the Madras High Court has held that penalty of dismissal of a workman would be justified in case of chronic and habitual absence from duty.