DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC RAICHUR DIVISION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. CHANDRMAAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dated 15.11.2010 in Reference No. 35/2009 on the file of the Labour Court, Gulbarga has presented this petition. Petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, a driver, un -authorisedly remaining absent from duties for 142 days from 01.09.2003 to 20.01.2004 and onwards without prior permission or sanction of leave. In the domestic enquiry though opportunity of hearing was extended to the respondent, nevertheless did neither appear in enquiry nor file an explanation or justify his absence, on medical grounds. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, held the respondent guilty of the charges and regard being had to the past record of service disclosing that the respondent had remained un -authorisedly absent on several occasions for a period of 1291 days in a span of 27 years being aggravating and not mitigating circumstance, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by order dated 05.08.2004.

(2.) THAT order when called in question by the respondent invoking provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act), the State Government, by order dated 17.01.2009, referred the industrial dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Gulbarga. Petitioner having responded to the claim statement, filed a counter statement bringing forth the facts and circumstances leading to the order of dismissal. In the premise of pleading of the parties, the Labour Court framed four issues, the first of which related to the validity of the domestic enquiry. Parties though did not adduce oral evidence, nevertheless placed material before Court which when considered, the Labour Court, by order dated 25.05.2010 answered, in the affirmative, the first issue, holding that the enquiry was fair and proper. There afterwards, the Labour Court by the award impugned though held that the respondent was absent un -authorisedly from 01.09.2003 to 20.01.2004 an act of misconduct, nevertheless held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct held proved and accordingly, invoked Section 11A of the Act, to reduce the punishment to one of withholding two future annual increments with cumulative effect while denying back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel hastens to add that the finding of the Labour Court that there was no material to establish the previous misconduct of un -authorised absence of 1291 days, is perverse, in the light of the consideration by the Disciplinary Authority of relevant information of the fact of previous similar misconduct leading to termination of service followed by reinstatement of the respondent, as recorded in the order of punishment.