THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC Vs. VERAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner - Corporation is before this Court assailing the award dated 03.05.2008 passed in KID No. 203/2000.

(2.) THE deceased - Conductor, while in service was issued with the article of charges alleging that he had remained unauthorisedly absent from September -1997 till December -1997. An enquiry was held and he was dismissed form service on 20.05.2000. The workman raised a dispute in KID No. 203/2000 by filing a petition under Section 10(4)(A) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court by its award dated 03.05.2008 has modified the order of punishment and on setting aside the order of dismissal has held that the punishment of with holding of annual increment for the years 1997 and 1998 permanently be imposed as punishment. It has been held that the salary for the period 16.09.1997 to 25.09.1997 would not be payable i.e., for the absence period. But it has directed the petitioner to provide continuity of the service, back wages and other consequential monetary benefits for the periods 20.05.2000 to 02.05.2002 i.e., from the date of dismissal till the date of death of the workman during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court.

(3.) IN the light of the contention put forth, a perusal of the award would disclose that the Labour Court no doubt has arrived at a categorical finding that the workman concerned had remained unauthorisedly absent and his contention that he was unwell during the periods September -1997 to December -1997 has not been established and therefore cannot be accepted. However, the Labour Court has proceeded to exercise its discretion under Section 11(A) of the I.D. Act to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner - Management ought to have imposed a lighter punishment as the dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct. In a circumstance where the Labour Court has considered this aspect of the matter and has arrived at the conclusion that an alternative punishment was required to be imposed, more particularly in a circumstance where the workman concerned had died during the pendency of the dispute, it would not call for interference.