VEER CHAND Vs. D.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 266/99 whereby the reference was answered against the Petitioner workman by upholding his termination as legal and justified.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the Petitioner was employed with the Respondent corporation as a tyre-man in 1983 and was served with a charge-sheet dated 10.6.1992 where it was alleged that the Petitioner remained absent from duty from 24.2.1992 to 11.5.1992. Thereafter, inquiry proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner where he was held guilty of misconduct and hence his services were terminated vide order dated 20.11.1992. Subsequently, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute bearing ID No. 266/99 whereby the learned Labour Court vide order dated 13.7.2006 upheld the punishment of removal awarded to the Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Before addressing the arguments, at the outset, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is ready to forego his back wages if he is reinstated back in service with continuity of service and consequential benefits. Dealing with the merits, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner remained on leave only for a very short period i.e. from 24.4.92 to 11.5.92 on account of death of his mother and marriage of his brother and there was no intentional or unauthorized absenteeism on the part of the Petitioner which could have led to inflicting such a serious punishment of termination of service of the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the past record of the Petitioner is absolutely clean, as in his nine years of service he never misconducted himself or was punished or penalized for any misconduct. Counsel thus submits that the case of the Petitioner deserved interference with the quantum of punishment by the labour Court in exercise of the powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act. Distinguishing the decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh, 2004 AIR(SC) 4161, Counsel submits that unlike the facts of the said case, the case of the Petitioner in the instant case is not that of unauthorized habitual absenteeism and therefore, the punishment of removal awarded to the Petitioner is clearly a case in which disproportionate punishment has been awarded and thus should have shocked the conscious of the Tribunal.