TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ applications have been taken up together as the parties thereto are aggrieved by one or other part of the same order dated 23 -6.1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur [hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the learned Labour Court]) in B.S.E. Case No. 6 of 1987. While the petitioner of CWJC No. 3418 of 1995(R) Smt. Sushila Prasad v. The Presiding Officer and Anr., is aggrieved by the refusal to reinstate her, the Management (Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited) which also happens to be the petitioner of CWJC No. 2174 of 1995(R) is aggrieved by that part of the order by which a compensation has been awarded to extent of 3.33 years salary including admissible allowances on the basis of the last pay and the allowances drawn by Smt. Sushila Prasad. For clarity the parties herein shall now be referred hereinafter by their individual names instead of being referred to as the petitioner of respondents.
(2.) THE case of Smt. Sushila Prasad is" that she was appointed in September, 1984 in M/s. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited as a Junior Assistant Grade III. Subsequently, on 26.5.1996, she applied for earned leave for ten days. According to her, she fell ill and remained under treatment from 10.6.1986 to 21.9.1986 and during this period, she also states that, she had intimated the Management. On 22.9.1986 she reported to the Tata Main Hospital where she was declared fit on 31.10.1986. Since 1.11.1986 and 2.11.1986 were not working days, she accordingly reported for her duties on 3.11.1986 and worked up to 5.11.1986. Again, on 6.11.1986 she fell ill and therefore, she remained under medical treatment up to 3.2.1987 and when she went to join her duties on 4.2.1987 after having been found to be medically fit, she was discharged on and from 5.2.1987.
(3.) ACCORDING to Smt. Sushila Prasad she informed the Management about her sickness by forwarding medical unfit certificates from time to time and also produced documents to show that she was sick and therefore was prevented by sufficient reasons to resume her duties. According to her, she was punished on account of a criminal case which had been lodged by her against the Managing Director of M/s. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited in which the police had submitted a charge -sheet.;