P. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. S. PAPPU, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, PAMPANPALLAN, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT Vs. KERALA DISTILLERIES, K. PUDUR, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two punishments, one of barring of three increments and the other of dismissal of the workman, was referred for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal, by a common award, decided the issues; but, however, dealt with them separately. Both the punishments were imposed by the management on allegations of misconduct of unauthorised absence.

(2.) Exhibit M1 was the files relating to the first domestic enquiry, which led to the punishment of barring of three increments. The misconducts alleged, under the Standing Orders, were: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_36_LAWS(KER)10_2016.htm</FRM> The misconduct of unauthorised absence alleged was for the period between 14.06.2004 and 17.07.2004. The workman had alleged that the Enquiry Officer was not impartial; but, however, the Tribunal found that there was no specific aspect pointed out of such partiality having been shown at the enquiry. The allegation of partiality was raised on the ground that the Enquiry Officer rejected the workman's request for production of certain documents. The documents sought for were the leave letters of all other employees and the muster roll for three years. The Tribunal found that the leave letters of other employees were irrelevant. The muster roll though relevant, the extracts of the same for the months of June and July, 2004 were alone produced. These disclosed the unauthorised absence alleged against the workman for the specific period. However, there was also an allegation of unauthorised absence for the years 2002 and 2003, which was alleged to show that the workman was a habitual absentee. The non-production of the entire muster roll was found to have not proved the said charge.

(3.) The proceedings with respect to the unauthorised absence specifically alleged between 14.06.2004 to 17.07.2004 was found to be proper. Looking at the evidence adduced, it was found that the workman had admitted the absence; but had claimed that he had sufficient reason, i.e., illness, to have absented himself and to that end, certain documents were produced. The certificates produced by the workman was not believed by the Enquiry Officer, which was found to be on cogent reasons. The allegation of misconduct was found to be proved and in such circumstance, the punishment imposed was also found to be correct.