BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, SIDDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560027, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. S. M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2008. Annexure -L, recording a finding, in the negative over the preliminary issue, holding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and aggrieved by the award dated 13.5.2010, in I.D.No. 71/2006. of the III Additional - Labour Court, Bangalore, insofar as interference with the order dated 8.8.2006 dismissing the respondent conductor from service and modifying the punishment to one of imposing a lesser punishment of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect, while denying back wages, consequential benefits, except continuity of service for pensionary benefits and not for any other benefits like increment, promotion etc., has presented this petition.

(2.) ALTHOUGH , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding in the negative on the preliminary issue by order dated 1.12.2008. Annexure -L, of the labour Court is not justified, a bare perusal of the order Indicates that the petitioner having appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold a domestic enquiry, apparently, did not follow the procedure contemplated in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, prompting the labour Court to record the said finding. In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the said finding, calling for interference.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that unauthorised absence of a conductor in the petitioner -Public Road Corporation is indiscipline of a high order, while habitual absenteeism is gross indiscipline as observed by the Apex Court in L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udayakumar, (2008) 1 LLJ 849 SC . In the facts of this case, the respondent workman is not shown to be a habitual absentee, however, the absence for an extended period of one year and seven months without prior permission or sanction of leave," can not go unnoticed, since not imposing a penalty would amount, to misplaced sympathy. In Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Narawade 2008 (1) SSC 224, the Apex Court observed that interference with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct, the area of discretion is very well defined by the various judgments of the Court, and the discretion which can be exercised under Section 11 -A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances, which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman, which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment.