Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Central Offices Vs. K.C.Nagabhushan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[v.jagannathan j.] this wp is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the award dt. 11.10.06 made in i.d.no.26/00 by the i/c. presiding officer hi addl. labor court, bangalore vide ann-d.order1. the petitioner-corporation calls in question the award of the additional labor court following the respondent herein being directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, without back wages and withholding of five annual increments. 2. the fact in brief are that the respondent was a badly conductor with the petitioner and he was appointed on 13.7.1993 and there afterwards respondent failed to turn up for duty and remained absent, for a long period of time. ultimately he reported for duty on 1.9.96 and produced the medical fitness certificate but in the meanwhile, petitioner had initiated disciplinary proceedings and articles of charge was issued on 17.10.96 which led to enquiry being conducted and pursuant to the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was left with no choice than to dismiss the respondent from his services by the order dated 17.1.2000. the said dismissal order gave raise to respondent raising a dispute before the additional labor court under section 10(4-a) of the id.act in i.d.no.26/2000. the fairness of the enquiry held, was considered as issue no.l and it was answered in favour of the petitioner. however, the dismissal of the respondent for his habioial unauthorized absence was held to be not sustainable as the order of dismissal was found to be disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the respondent. ultimately the labor court ordered reinstatement of the respondent, but without b*&ck; wages and five annual increments were also directed to be withheld with cumulative effect. it is this award of the labor court which is assailed in this writ petition.3. i have heard learned counsel shri l.govindraj for the petitioner. respondent though served has remained absent.4. submission of petitioner's counsel is that the labor court erred in directing reinstatement of the respondent into service and did not take into account the continued absence of the respondent for a long period of time and more over, the nature of illness with which the respondent was said to be suffering was not serious enough so as to warrant absence from duty for such a long period. though the labor court took not of the cases of other conductors which were also on the very same allegations of unauthorized absence, the labor court erred in not tasking note of the case on hand as the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are quite different from the one which was referred to by the labor court in the course of its reasoning at para-11 of the award. stating that respondent remained absent for over 403 days and the illness which the respondent referred in the opd chit also being not of bush nature so as to warrant continued absence, all these factors were lost sight of by the labor court while ordering reinstatement. therefore, the powers conferred on the labor court by virtue of section 11-a of the i.d.act have not been property exercised and as such, the award of the labor court be bet-aside.5. taking note of the above submission and the labor court also having failed to give proper reasons as to why it deemed fit to order reinstatement, the award of the labor court cannot be sustained in law in so far as grant of reinstatement is concerned and as such, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the labor court to consider the whole case independently of other instances and there after wards, labor court can dispose of trie matter in accordance with law in so far as punishment to be given to the respondent is concerned. since the matter is now being remanded for the aforesaid reasons, it is impressed upon the labor court to dispose of the matter within three months of receipt of this judgment.6. in the result, writ petition is allowed. award of the tribunal is set-aside with a direction to reconsider the issue of punishment to be imposed on the respondent and after hearing both sides on that aspect, matter be disposed of within three months of receipt of this judgment.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner-Corporation calls in question the award of the Additional Labor Court following the respondent herein being directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, without back wages and withholding of five annual increments.

2. The fact in brief are that the respondent was a badly conductor with the petitioner and he was appointed on 13.7.1993 and there afterwards respondent failed to turn up for duty and remained absent, for a long period of time. Ultimately he reported for duty on 1.9.96 and produced the medical fitness certificate but in the meanwhile, petitioner had initiated disciplinary proceedings and Articles of Charge was issued on 17.10.96 which led to enquiry being conducted and pursuant to the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was left with no choice than to dismiss the respondent from his services by the order dated 17.1.2000. The said dismissal order gave raise to respondent raising a dispute before the Additional Labor Court under Section 10(4-A) of the ID.Act in I.D.No.26/2000. The fairness of the enquiry held, was considered as issue No.l and it was answered in favour of the petitioner. However, the dismissal of the respondent for his habioial unauthorized absence was held to be not sustainable as the order of dismissal was found to be disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the respondent. Ultimately the Labor Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent, but without b*&ck; wages and five annual increments were also directed to be withheld with cumulative effect. It is this award of the Labor Court which is assailed in this writ petition.

3. I have heard learned Counsel Shri L.Govindraj for the petitioner. Respondent though served has remained absent.

4. Submission of petitioner's Counsel is that the Labor Court erred in directing reinstatement of the respondent into service and did not take into account the continued absence of the respondent for a long period of time and more over, the nature of illness with which the respondent was said to be suffering was not serious enough so as to warrant absence from duty for such a long period. Though the Labor Court took not of the cases of other conductors which were also on the very same allegations of unauthorized absence, the Labor Court erred in not tasking note of the case on hand as the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are quite different from the one which was referred to by the Labor Court in the course of its reasoning at para-11 of the award. Stating that respondent remained absent for over 403 days and the illness which the respondent referred in the OPD chit also being not of Bush nature so as to warrant continued absence, all these factors were lost sight of by the Labor Court while ordering reinstatement. Therefore, the powers conferred on the Labor Court by virtue of section 11-A of the I.D.Act have not been property exercised and as such, the award of the Labor Court be Bet-aside.

5. Taking note of the above submission and the Labor court also having failed to give proper reasons as to why it deemed fit to order reinstatement, the award of the labor Court cannot be sustained in law in so far as grant of reinstatement is concerned and as such, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Labor court to consider the whole case independently of other instances and there after wards, Labor Court can dispose of trie matter in accordance with law in so far as punishment to be given to the respondent is concerned. Since the matter is now being remanded for the aforesaid reasons, it is impressed upon the Labor Court to dispose of the matter within three months of receipt of this judgment.

6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Award of the Tribunal is set-aside with a direction to reconsider the issue of punishment to be imposed on the respondent and after hearing both sides on that aspect, matter be disposed of within three months of receipt of this judgment.