COMMISSIONER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.200/1995 dated 28.4.1999 directing reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service but without any backwages from the date of dismissal from service, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai, has preferred this Writ Petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the second respondent was a sanitary worker. He has absented from 1.6.1990 without any intimation or reasonable cause. Therefore, a charge memo dated 31.12.1992 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken for unauthorised absence. Thereafter, a proper charge memo dated 29.12.1994 was formulated for which, the second respondent submitted his reply. Not satisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was ordered. Charge for unauthorised absence held proved. Consequently, the Corporation vide order dated 17.2.1995 dismissed the second respondent from service.

(3.) ASSAILING the award, Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation submitted that when the Labour Court had concurred with the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry and also found that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, having regard to long continuous absence from 1.6.1990 till the petitioner submitted a petition, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the penalty. Placing reliance on the decision made in Managing Director, Balasahed Desai Sahakari S.K.Limited vs. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale reported in (2009) 2 SCC 288, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the discretion exercised by the employer on the quantum of penalty is erroneous and not justifiable, unless it is proved that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct.