(1.) THE Respondent - a driver in the Petitioner -Corporation, remained absent from duty without prior intimation and permission with effect from 19.6.2000. Articles of Charge dated 26.7.2000 was issued for the misconduct of remaining absent without prior sanction. No reply was submitted. A domestic enquiry was ordered and the enquiry Officer submitted the report to the effect that, the charged misconduct is proved. Earlier also, the Respondent had remained absent on 15 occasions. A show -cause notice enclosing the copy of the enquiry report was sent to the Respondent on 2.6.03. No reply was submitted. The Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration the record of the disciplinary proceedings and the gravity of the misconduct, passed an order of dismissal from service on 9.7.03.
(2.) RESPONDENT filed a claim under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, 'the Act'), in the Labour Court at Bangalore. The Petitioner filed counter statement, opposing the claim. Issues were raised. By an order dated 19.4.05, Labour Court held that, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management is fair and proper. While examining the record with reference to the victimisation and proportionality of punishment, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and imposed the punishment of denial of 10 increments with cumulative effect and directed reinstatement but without backwages, however, with continuity of service. Aggrieved, the Management has filed this writ petition.
(3.) SRI Narasimha Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, contended that, the punishment of dismissal for unauthorised absence being too harsh and disproportionate, the Labour Court was justified in exercising its power under Section 11 -A of the Act arid in moulding the relief. learned Counsel submitted that, the subsequent absence, if any, of the Respondent has no relevance for decision in this case and submitted that the Award of the Labour Court, needs no interference.