Bhuvesh, working as supervisor in Shantala Silks applied for leave for 8 days from 2nd March to 9th March. He reported for duty on 28th March and produced a medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon to the effect t

The facts of the given case are very much similar to Venkatiah vs. Management of the Buckingham . In the instant case, the management is bound to accept any medical certificate that might be produced by the worker, in support of his case that he was too ill to attend to his work. It is always for the management to consider whether the certificate produced by the worker from a medical officer other than the company's medical officer should be accepted or not. Here, the company's doctor did not say definitely whether the worker was really ill or not. The management does not seem to have rejected the Civil Surgeon's certificate as untrustworthy. Under such circumstances it could not be held that the company had discharged their obligations under their Standing Orders or considering the explanation of the worker in regard to his absence. Such a failure of duty on the part of the management particularly having regard to the terms of standing Order which oblige them to convert absence of a worker as one on leave in case they were satisfied with the explanation of the worker showed that there was an act on their part which brought about discharge or dismissal of the worker. The action of the management amounted to a contravention of the provisions of Section 73 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 which provides that the employer not to dismiss or punish employee during period of sickness and hence, such is invalid.