RAJEEV SHARMA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions, which arise from a judgement, dated 2nd August, 2004, passed by the National Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), were initially filed before the High Court of Bombay and, consequent upon orders passed by the Supreme Court, were transferred to this court.

(2.) The Tribunal, vide the impugned judgement, dismissed an application, filed by Indian Airlines Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "IAL") under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of an order, dated 31st August, 1999/2nd September, 1999, dismissing the workman Rajeev Sharma from service. WP (C) 21983/2005, filed by IAL, prays that the impugned judgement be quashed and set aside, while WP (C) 16316/2004, at the instance of the workman, predictably seeks the enforcement and implementation thereof.

(3.) The facts are brief. The workman, who was employed with IAL, was, on 31st March, 1997, issued a charge-sheet, alleging that he had been absent from work, for 413 days, during the period February 1996 to March 1997 (328 days in 1996 and 85 days in 1997) and had, thereby, committed "misconduct", within the meaning of Rule 28 (13) of the Standing Orders (Regulations), stated to be applicable to IAL and to the workmen employed therein. This was followed by another charge-sheet, dated 21st April 1998, alleging that the workman had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for 778 days, from February, 1996 till March, 1998, comprising 328 days in 1996, 360 days in 1997 and 90 days in 1998 and, as in the case of the earlier charge-sheet dated 31st March, 1997, requiring him to submit his response, showing cause as to why his absence not be treated as "misconduct" within the meaning of Clause 28 (13) of the Standing Orders (Regulations). No response was received, from the workman, to either of the said charge-sheets. An Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as "IO") was appointed, who held and concluded the inquiry on a single day, i.e. 4th September, 1998. The workman was permitted the services of a Defence Assistant. IAL cited, as its lone witness, Mr. Harish Chatola, Senior Office Superintendent, who, from the record, confirmed the fact of absence, from duty, of the workman, during the period stated in the charge-sheet. Cross-examination of Mr. Chatola was offered, which was declined by the workman. The workman, in his defence, cited certain adverse family circumstances, i.e. (i) the hospitalisation of his brother, at Faridabad, consequent to his meeting with an accident, which required the workman to take care of him till March, 1997, (ii) an accident, suffered by the workman himself, during the said period, in January, 1997, as a result whereof he was also immobilised for 4 months, and (iii) infection developing in the workman "?s leg, during that period, resulting in his being further unable to rejoin duty till November, 1997. It was further contended, by the workman, that he had reported, for work, on 24th November, 1997, whereupon he was directed to make an application through proper channel, accompanied by a medical certificate of fitness. Since then, according to the workman, he had been running "from pillar to post, for joining duties without any fruits" (as per the statement of the workman before the IO). Medical certificates, allegedly evidencing the treatment, of the workman "?s brother, from 19th February, 1996 to 3rd March, 1997, as well as his own treatment from 25th January, 1997 to 24th November, 1997, were also furnished, by the workman to the IO.