His attendance record of the year 2000 particularly appears to be quite bad when he remained absent for 55 days. In the month of November, he was absent for 16 days and in October for 10 days. It is difficult to believe that the superior of the employees would allow him to remain absent for 16 days in November 2000 on mere telephonic intimation. Though the chargesheet is sought to be linked with Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the conduct of the employee in April 2002 appears to have triggered the chargesheet. According to the averment in para-3.5 of the complaint, the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced in June 2002 and therefore there is no question of the employee choosing any option in May 2002 when the chargesheet was issued. It therefore becomes difficult to believe that there was linkage between the chargesheet and Voluntary Retirement Scheme. On the contrary, the employee remained absent for 8 days in April 2002 which appears to be the cause for issuance of the chargesheet. In my view, the employerGodrej ought to have led concrete evidence before the Labour Court about leave account of the employee and ought to have demonstrated as to how many days of absence exceeded permissible leave in a particular year. Therefore, though absence of the employee was proved before the Labour Court, there remained a vacuum in evidence about its nature. For this lacuna on the part of the employer-Godrej, benefit of doubt will have to be given to the employee.
