K.V. SRINIVASAN Vs. CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the award passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D.No.104/2006 dated 19.3.2010 insofar as denying continuity of service and consequential benefits to the petitioner by ordering withholding of one annual increment to the petitioner without cumulative effect for a period of two years as a just punishment.

(2.) The petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent-Corporation initially appointed as a badli conductor on 24.2.1986. He was placed on probation on 1.11.1986 and his services were confirmed on 17.6.1989. On certain charges framed against the petitioner on the alleged misconduct said to have been proved by the Enquiry Officer, order of dismissal was passed by the respondent on 30.12.2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had raised dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court which came to be disposed of holding that the charge of unauthorized absence though is proved, the Management was not justified in imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal order dated 30.12.2004. Withholding one annual increment of the petitioner without cumulative effect for a period of two years with reinstatement, but denying backwages has been held to be the just punishment.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, it is significant to note that the Labour Court has analysed the material in extenso to arrive at a decision that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the petitioner for the misconduct of unauthorized absence is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Exercising discretionary powers under Section 11-A of the Act, the punishment is modified withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. Having arrived at such a decision in the final award portion, it is silent inasmuch as the continuity of service and consequential benefits. The petitioner is aggrieved only with the said aspect.