THE ASST.MECHANICAL ENGINEER M.S.R.T.CORP. v. IQBAL ABDUL REHMAN KHAN AND ORS.

2

respondent No.1 was dismissed from service for certain acts of misconduct. However, the appellate authority quashed the dismissal order and imposed lesser punishment of stoppage of annual increment. The petitioner charge- sheeted respondent No.1 on 29.11.1999 alleging that he had committed acts of misconduct listed in Clauses 10, 22 and 35 of Schedule "A" of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure of the Corporation. These acts included absence without permission from 18.9.1998 to 20.11.1998, indiscipline and irregular attendance. An enquiry was held against respondent No.1. On the basis of the enquiry and the reply received from respondent No.1 to the show cause notice issued by the petitioner Corporation, the Corporation dismissed respondent No.1 from service on 3.4.1992.

3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal from service, respondent No.1 preferred a complaint under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. He alleged that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act.

4. The complaint was allowed partly by the Labour Court by an order dated 3.8.1994. The Labour Court concluded that the only charge which was established against

3

respondent No.1 was absence without permission for 20 days. The Labour Court observed that the past record of respondent No.1 was not so bad as to deny him relief in the complaint. The Labour Court, therefore, held that respondent No.1 was entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and 50% back wages.

5. A revision application filed by the petitioner being Revision Application (ULP) No.93 of 2004 met with the same fate. Hence the present petition.

6. Mr.Hegde appeariing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erred in reinstating the workman. He further submits that the Labour Court has wrongly held that the charge-sheet was vague. According the learned advocate, all the acts of misconduct alleged against respondent No.1 have been proved at the enquiry held against him. The Labour Court ought not to have therefore granted reinstatement in service with continuity and 50% back wages. The learned advocate submits that even assuming the Labour Court is right in concluding that the only misconduct proved against respondent No.1 is absence from duty for 20 days, it ought not to have granted the relief that it had. He submits that the past record of respondent No.1 was not unblemished and this fact ought to have been

4

taken into consideration by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order.

7. In my view, the submissions of Mr.Hegde are unsustainable. Once the Labour Court has held that the charge-sheet itself is vague, it has rightly confined itself only to the charge which was specifically stipulated in the charge-sheet. As regards the charge of indiscipline and irregular attendance, the Labour Court found that these charges are absolutely vague and held that they have not been proved. The Labour Court therefore confined itself to the charge of absence from duty on 18.9.1991 to 28.11.1991 and held that the charge is proved, partly. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Labour Court found that there was no application or medical certificate submitted by respondent No.1 for his absence from 18.9.1991 to 7.10.1991. However, the Labour Court found that respondent No.1 had applied for leave from 8.10.1991 to 27.11.1991 and had submitted a medical certificate along with the application. On this basis the Labour court was of the view that the absence from duty from 18.9.1991 to 7.10.1991 was unexplained.

8. The Labour Court has held that respondent No.1 was guilty of the aforesaid misconduct of remaining absent for 20

5

days. The Labour Court has rightly considered the past record of respondent No.1 and has concluded that the record was not blame-worthy. It has, therefore, after considering the judgment of this Court, held that the petitioner was guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 1(g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. In respect of other items which had been mentioned in the complaint, the Labour Court has found that the termination order was illegal but there was no evidence to support the contention that there was any unfair labour practice under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act.

9. The Labour Court has, in my view, rightly deprived the workman of 50% of the back wages for respondent No.1 remaining absent without permission for 20 days. This punishment was appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case. To deprive a person of his livelihood on the ground that he had remained absent for 20 days without informing the management would be too harsh a punishment when for 19 years earlier the workman had an unblemished service record. The judgment of the Labour Court cannot be faulted. Both the lower Courts have concurrently held that respondent No.1 is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. In my view, these findings

6

are not perverse and, therefore, they need not be interfered in this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged.

.....

7