DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. C C BADIGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has raised the challenge to the award dated 9-5-2005 (Annexure-A) passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli in Reference No. 109 of 1999. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was working as a Traffic Controller in the services of the petitioner-Corporation. On the ground of unauthorised absence for about seven months from 20-1-1995 to 21-7-1995, he was dismissed from service on 23-6-1997. The respondent-workman raised the conciliation proceedings. On the failure of the Government to bring about any conciliation between the parties, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of the award proceedings, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 5-2-2001. The Additional Labour Court confirmed the findings as delivered in the Departmental Enquiry. However, it found the punishment to be disproportionate and set aside the order of dismissal. As the respondent has retired in the meanwhile, it did not order his reinstatement. Further, it also held that the respondent is not entitled to back wages. It only directed the payment of retiral benefits.

(2.) Smt. Veena Hegde, the learned Counsel appearing for Sri Dinesh Rao for the petitioner submits that the respondent is a habitual and chronic absentee. She submits that in the past also, the petitioner had committed as many as 11 misconducts of unauthorised absence. She would therefore pray for the quashing of the impugned award and for the upholding of the dismissal order.

(3.) My perusal of the impugned award reveals that the respondent indeed submitted the medical certificates for the purpose of seeking the extension of leave. However, the leave was not granted and the leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. But the request for the extension of leave on the medical grounds has to weigh with adjudicatory forums, while prescribing the quantum of punishment. This is what has been precisely done in this case by the Additional Labour Court. The Additional Labour Court has passed a very balanced award. As the respondent has attained the age of superannuation on 5-2-2001, it has rightly avoided giving any direction for his reinstatement. As he has not worked during the period from 23-6-1997 (the date of his dismissal) till 5-2-2001 (the date on which he has attained the age of superannuation), it has also denied the back wages to him. It has only granted the retiral benefits. Such a discretionary, balanced and equitable order doses not call for any interference. This petition is dismissed.