THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BELGAUM DIVISION Vs. DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is aggrieved by the award dated 25.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional Labour Court, Hubli, whereby the learned Labour Court has allowed the petition filed under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1987) Act, 1947, and set aside the removal order dated 27.03.2008, and has directed the petitioner -Corporation to reinstate the respondent and grant him other consequential benefits except for backwages for the period of his absence from work.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the respondent, Mr. Deepak, was working as Junior Assistant in the petitioner -Corporation. The respondent joined as Junior Assistant in 2002 with the petitioner -Corporation. During his period of service, he was unauthorisedly absent from 20.10.2005 to 30.10.2006, i.e. for the period of 378 days. The petitioner was served with a charge -sheet; departmental enquiry was held against him. Subsequently, by order dated 27.03.2008 the respondent was removed from his service. Since he was aggrieved by the said punishment order, he filed a petition under Section 10(4 -A) of the Act before the learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli. After hearing both the parties, by award dated 25.11.2010, the learned Labour Court granted the award in favour of the respondent as mentioned herein above. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent, has pleaded that no evidence has been led by the petitioner to establish the fact that the respondent was undergoing a training programme. In fact, the respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant by the Corporation. Therefore, he cannot be termed as a 'trainee'. Thus, the ratio of the case of Raju S. Jaydi (Supra), is in -applicable to the present case. Secondly, the respondent has given ample reasons for his absence by both submitting a Medical Certificate and by examining the treating doctor, who was none other than the doctor engaged by the Corporation itself. Therefore, the learned Counsel has supported the impugned award.