PRESIDING BEST WORKERS UNION Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petition has been filed by a Union representing some of the workers employed in the Respondent No.1 undertaking and the workman whose services were dismissed by Respondent No.1 For the sake of convenience, the petitioner No.2 would be referred to as the 'employee' and Respondent No.1 undertaking will be referred to as the Undertaking'.

(2.) THE employee joined service with the undertaking as a Conductor on 22.2.1977. He was initially employed as a badli worker. Thereafter he was made permanent in service. It appears that on 7.7.1995, a report was submitted to the undertaking by the Leave Clerk that the employee had been absent from 7.3.1995 for 15 consecutive days. A chargesheet was issued to the employee under Standing Order 20(f) on 31.7.1995. It was alleged that the employee had remained absent without leave for more than 15 consecutive days. An enquiry was held against the workman and he was dismissed from service on 27.10.1995 as the charges levelled against him had been proved. The workman, therefore, approached the undertaking in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act on 6.5.1996. Since no reply was received by the employee, he preferred an application before the Labour Court u/s 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'BIR Act') being Application (BIR) No.84 of 1996. In his application the employee contended that he had been dismissed from service after holding an enquiry which was not fair and legal and proper. According to him, the findings of enquiry officer were perverse. He pleaded that he was unwell and, therefore, could not attend his duties. He annexed a medical certificate to the statement of claim.

(3.) THE Labour Court by its order dated 30.6.1997 held that the enquiry conducted against the employee was fair and proper. It further held that the conclusions drawn by the Trying Officer about the guilt of the employee were justified and not perverse. The misconduct was thus proved. However, the Labour Court held that the employee was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. A further punishment of stoppage of two increments for two years w.e.f. 27.10.1995 was also imposed on the employee. The Labour Court has considered the past service record of the employee while imposing this punishment. The Court took note of the fact that the employee had not attended duty after he went on sick leave on 7.3.1995.