BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K H ROAD, BANGALORE BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. SEENAPPACHARI (SINCE) DECREASED BY HIS LRS, SMT. PADMA W/O. LATE SEENAPPACHARI, S. MANJU S/O. LATE SEENAPPACHARI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .P. 37323 -25/2010 is filed by the legal representatives of deceased Seenappachari, a driver in the Respondent -Public Road Transport Corporation, calling in question the award dt. 9.11.2009 of the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D. 47/2006 insofar as it relates to the substitution of the dismissal from service to withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment, without back wages and consequential benefits except continuity of service for pensionary/retirement benefits and not for other benefits like increments, promotion, etc. W.P. 23423/2010 is filed by the Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the very same award.

(2.) WITH the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) THE workman aggrieved by the said order filed a petition under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'Industrial Disputes Act', registered as I.D. 47/2006 before the Presiding Officer, III Addl.Labour Court, Bangalore. Parties having placed their respective pleadings, the Labour Court framed issues, and the issue relating to the validity of the enquiry was treated as preliminary. The Road Transport Corporation examined one witness as MW -1 and marked 27 documents as Exs.M1 to M27, while the workman was examined as WW -1 and did not produce documents. The Labour Court by order dt. 4.8.2008 answered the preliminary issue in the negative holding the domestic enquiry as not fair and proper. Thereafterwards, the Road Transport Corporation, examined two witnesses as MW -2 and 3. During the pendency of the proceeding the workman was reported to have died and his legal representatives permitted to come on record and pursue the proceedings as right to sue survived, whence the widow examined as WW -2, did not produce documents. Labour Court by the award impugned in great elaboration considered the material on record, declined to accept as credible evidence Exs.M8, M9, M10, M11 and M13 being the representations and the medical certificates submitted by the workman for sanction of leave on medical grounds, in the absence of prescriptions, medical bills and the evidence of the doctor, who treated the workman. The Labour Court having recorded a finding that the misconduct of unauthorised absence was proved, nevertheless observed that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh since this Court in several cases where in similar circumstances minor punishments were imposed for similar acts of misconduct, and therefore, concluded that the dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and accordingly, modifying the same to one of reinstatement by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, as a measure of punishment.