DTC Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 18.4.2006 whereby the Industrial Tribunal has directed the payment of compensation of Rs. 75,000 in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased workman i.e. the Respondents herein.

(2.) Mr. Jitendra Kumar, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case of the Respondent is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DTC v. Sardar Singh, 2004 102 FLR 1031 , as the Respondent workman remained absent unauthorizedly for a period of two days i.e. from 12.3.1993 to 14.3.1993 and also for 49 days in the year 1992, 139 days in the year 1991, 102 days in the year 1990 and 114 days in the year 1989. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that a composite chargesheet was issued to the Respondent workman and a domestic enquiry was conducted by the management in which the Respondent was held guilty and his services were terminated. The Respondent-workman challenged the order of removal before the Labour Court which was decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the workman. Counsel further submits that although it was proved on record by the Petitioner management that enquiry by the management was conducted in a fair and proper manner after due observance of principles of natural justice but yet the Ld. Labour Court had interfered in the order of punishment. The contention of the counsel for the Petitioner is that interference under Section 11A of the I.D. Act would arise only if the punishment awarded by the management is shockingly disproportionate and so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the same being a case of repeated unauthorized absenteeism on the part of the Respondent, the Ld. Labour Court ought to have upheld the order of punishment directing removal of the Respondent from his service. Counsel thus submits that the Ld. Labour Court has not properly exercised its jurisdiction and illegally and improperly interfered in the punishment awarded to the Respondent.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the Petitioner at considerable length and gone through the records.