M NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. CHIEF TECHNICAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Workman, a 'Helper' in the respondent- Public Road Transport Corporation remained absent from duty w.e.f. 10.11.2001 onwards without prior permission or sanction of leave leading to initiation of disciplinary proceeding by issuing an Articles of Charge dated 5.2.2002 to which a reply was submitted on 28.3.2002 stating that he was not keeping good health, whereafter an Inquiring Authority when appointed issued notices extending reasonable opportunity of hearing and submitted a report over the absence of the petitioner holding the charge proved. The second show cause notice when issued to the petitioner was not responded to by a reply. The Disciplinary Authority on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, having noticed that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for over a period of one year and five months, continuously, without prior permission of sanction of leave or dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 28.1.2003.

(2.) Petitioner initiated conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', whence the State Govt. referred, for adjudication, the industrial dispute to the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, registered as Ref. No.60/2010. Parties having filed their respective pleadings, the Labour Court framed an additional issue over the validity of domestic enquiry. Respondent-employer examined one witness as MW-1 and marked Exs.M1 to M14, while the petitioner was examined as WW-1 and did not mark any documents. The Labour Court by order dated 5.12.2011 answered the additional issue in the affirmative and against the petitioner holding the domestic enquiry as fair and proper. Thereafterwards the petitioner was further examined as WW-1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.W1 to W9 on the point of victimization, while, the respondent-corporation examined another witness as MW1 and marked the past history sheet of the petitioner as Ex.M15.

(3.) The Labour Court on a consideration of the material on record held absence from duty from 10.11.2001 for more than one year five months, leading to termination from service was established and declined to accept the statement of the petitioner as credible evidence over his assertion that he was not keeping good health. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the petitioner suffered from illness for a period of more than one year five months declined to accept the plea that the petitioner had, in fact, suffered from ailments and was under treatment during the said period. The Labour Court further observed that the copies of orders Exs.W5 to W9 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing lesser punishments on corporation employees who remained absent from service ranging from six months to three years, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner did not suffer from discrimination. In addition, the Labour Court observed that the dispute was raised seven years after the termination from service without satisfactory explanation over the said delay. Lastly the Labour Court observed that the termination from service was on 21.8.2003 while I.D.No.148/2005 was referred for adjudication much later in point of time and the dismissal from service not being during the pendency of the said Industrial Dispute, Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act had no application. Accordingly by award dated 11.4.2012 Annexure-M the Labour Court rejected the reference.