MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. GHANSHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner-Corporation has called in question the award dtd. 19/5/2017 passed by the District Judge and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kalaburagi, in REF.No.63/2016 produced at Annexure-C whereby the reference filed by the respondent-workman is partly allowed.

(2.) Case of the petitioner-Corporation is that the respondent-workman was working as Mechanic in the petitioner-Corporation. Without prior permission from the higher authority and without giving leave application, the respondent-workman remained unauthorized absent for a period of 2 years 6 months 19 days. Hence, departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent-workman. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has passed the order dismissing the respondent-workman from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-workman approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court by the impugned award at Annexure-C partly allowed the reference setting aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the workman into service without backwages etc. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Corporation is before this Court.

(3.) Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submitted that the respondent- workman was working as Mechanic in Bhalki Depot. Without taking permission from the higher authority and without giving any leave application, he remained unauthorized absent for duty from 17/5/2011. Due to the absence of the respondent-workman who was working as mechanic, lot of inconvenience was caused to the Corporation. Since the respondent has disobeyed the service conditions, departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer after conducting detailed enquiry and giving opportunity to the respondent filed report stating that the charges levelled against the respondent-workman have been proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order dismissing the respondent-workman from service. He further contended that it is an admitted fact that he was unauthorized absent from service for a period of 2 years 6 months 19 days. Therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed punishment of dismissal. Though the Labour Court has observed that the workman remained unauthorized absent for duty without prior permission, it directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the workman into service. The Labour Court is not justified in passing the impugned award setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the writ petition.