A. GANESH REDDY Vs. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a driver in the Respondent -Road Transport Corporation, remained absent from duty with effect from 6 -10 -2009 without prior permission and sanction of leave, leading to disciplinary proceedings by issue of articles of charge dated 12 -11 -2001. On an Enquiry Officer being appointed, domestic enquiry held into the charges, by extending reasonable opportunity of hearing, was followed by the submission of an enquiry report holding the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence, held the Petitioner guilty of the charge of unauthorised absence and there being no material placed by the Petitioner to justify the defence of absence from service due to treatment at Seva Kshetra and Victoria Hospital, for jaundice, coupled with the fact that the past record of service of the Petitioner disclosed imposition of minor punishment on 10 occasions in the past for similar such proved misconduct of unauthorised absence, accordingly by order dated 23 -9 -2003, dismissed the Petitioner from services.

(2.) THAT order was called in question by rising a conciliation proceeding before the Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whence the State Government referred the said dispute for adjudication, by order dated 6 -11 -2007 to the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. Before the Labour Court, Petitioner filed a claim statement to which the Respondent -Road Transport Corporation filed its counter, denying the allegations. In the premise of pleadings of parties, the Labour Court framed a preliminary issue over validity of the Domestic enquiry.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner points out to the finding recorded by the Labour Court declining to accept the medical certificates, Exs. M. 8 and M. 9 and W. 1 and W. 2 to contend that the Petitioner suffered from jaundice and the period of absence from 6 -10 -2001 to 28 -5 -2002 was absolutely necessary to restore his health. According to the Learned Counsel, the certificates establish justification for absence from duty. Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner has put in 17 years of service and the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct held proved and as a consequence, calls for interference. Learned Counsel hastens to add that the Labor Court fell in error in not exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to interfere with the quantum of punishment.