This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation, challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 23.3.2004, made in I.D.No.14 of 1997.
2. It has been stated that the second respondent was employed as a Driver in the petitioner Corporation. Due to his unauthorized absence during the months of February and March,1996, charge sheets, dated 4.3.1996 and 1.4.1996, had been issued to him. However, the second respondent did not submit any explanation for the charges levelled against him. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the said charges. The second respondent had participated in the enquiry, wherein, he had admitted his unauthorized absence stating that it was due to certain medical reasons.
3. During the enquiry, it was found that even after the issuance of the charge sheets, the second respondent had absented himself during the months of April and May,1996. The enquiry officer, by his findings, dated 4.6.1996, had come to the conclusion that the second respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer and considering the past records of service of the second respondent, the management of the petitioner Corporation had issued a second show cause notice, dated 4.7.1996, to the second respondent, proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. The second respondent had submitted his explanation, dated 13.7.1996. Since the explanation submitted by the second respondent was not found to be satisfactory, the second respondent was terminated from service, by an order, dated 11.10.1996. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 11.10.1996, the second respondent had raised an industrial dispute, before the first respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.14 of 1997. The first respondent Labour Court by a preliminary order, dated 12.11.2001, had found that the domestic enquiry held against the second respondent was fair and proper and that the charges levelled against the second respondent had been proved. However, the first respondent Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of the second respondent in service, with back wages and with continuity of service, based on misplaced sympathy, in favour of the second respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the first respondent Labour Court, while exercising its power, under
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ought not to have taken into consideration the extraneous factors, as the power is to be exercised judiciously. The Labour Court had erred in interfering with the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the second respondent only on the ground that an opportunity ought to have been given to him to reform himself. Thus, it is clear that the first respondent Labour Court had interfered with the punishment of dismissal imposed on the second respondent based on misplaced sympathy, contrary to the decisions of the Apex Court. The first respondent Labour Court had relied on the oral statement of the second respondent workman that he was suffering from ear pain and nervous disability, even though there was no material on record in support of his claims. Once the absence of the second respondent was found to be unauthorized, the first respondent Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed on the second respondent. Hence, the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 23.3.2004, made in I.D.No.14 of 1997, is liable to be set aside, as it is devoid of merits.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that the enquiry, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, had been conducted properly by following the principles established by law and the principles of natural justice. Since the delinquent workman had not produced any evidence, either oral or documentary, to support his claim that he was suffering from pain and discomfort in his left ear and that he had nervous disability, the enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that the workman had been absent unauthorisedly. However, there was nothing shown on behalf of the second respondent that he had requested the petitioner Corporation for alternate employment and that such a request had been denied. There was no proof in support of the statement made by the second respondent before the enquiry officer that he had made several representations to the management of the petitioner Corporation, with regard to his medical problems. Before imposing the punishment of dismissal from service the management of the petitioner Corporation had considered the second respondents previous service records, according to which he had been punished on several previous occasions, on various charges, including the charge of unauthorized absence. The second respondent had not intimated the management of the petitioner Corporation, nor did he obtain prior permission before he had absented himself, unauthorisedly. No leave application had been submitted by him requesting for leave on medical grounds.
6. It is seen from the records available before this Court that the first respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated 23.3.2004, in I.D.No.14 of 1997, reinstating the petitioner, with continuity of service, without back wages. The Labour Court had found that there were sufficient grounds for the second respondent to have been absent, even though such absence might have been unauthorized. Proper reasons have been shown by the second respondent, during the domestic enquiry, to show as to why the second respondent had been absent from duty. Even though the second respondent had claimed that he had made several representations to the management of the petitioner Corporation to give him an alternate employment, on medical grounds, such representation had not been considered by the petitioner Corporation. However, the second respondent had been in employment of the petitioner Corporation for over 12 years and his dismissal from service by the order of the management of the petitioner Corporation, dated 11.10.1996, is disproportionate in nature.
7. The first respondent Labour Court had come to its conclusions in its award, dated 23.3.2004, by giving sufficient reasons and the findings of the first respondent Labour Court cannot be said to be without any basis. The first respondent Labour Court had considered the various aspects of the matter in its proper perspective and had come to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on the second respondent workman, was disproportionate in nature. Even though the management of the petitioner Corporation had considered the past records, from which it could be seen that certain punishments had been imposed on the second respondent, on earlier occasions, based on various charges, including the charges relating to his unauthorized absence, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the second respondent had been given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case before taking into account his past records of service.
8. In such circumstances, it is clear that the management of the petitioner Corporation has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 23.3.2004, made in I.D.No.14 of 1997. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
csh To
1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar
3.The Tahsildar, Sivakasi