MALLIKARJUN DHULLAPPA RAJMANE Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, Petitioner has challenged the Award dtd. 27/6/2016 passed by the Labour Court, Solapur in Reference (IDA) No. 23 of 2015 to the extent of non- grant of backwages upon reinstatement of Petitioner w.e.f. 8/6/2011. Petitioner is working on the post of Driver with the Respondent-Transport Corporation since the year 1985 consequent to disciplinary proceedings held on the charge of absence from duty, the Respondent-Corporation imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the Petitioner w.e.f 8/6/2011. At the instance of the Petitioner, Reference was made to the Labour Court, Solapur and numbered as Reference (IDA) No. 23 of 2013. Petitioner fled Statement of Claim in the Reference which was resisted by the Respondent-Corporation by fling its reply. The Labour Court has rendered Part-I Award on preliminary issues on 11/6/2016 holding that the Departmental Enquiry was legal, fair and proper and that the fndings were not perverse. Petitioner examined himself as a Witness. The Respondent-Corporation did not examine any witness. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to deliver Part- II Award dtd. 27/6/2016 and has held that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate. The Labour Court has thereafter set aside the dismissal order and has directed the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner w.e.f. 8/6/2011.

(2.) The Labour Court has held that forfeiture of two annual increments permanently would be an appropriate penalty considering the nature of charge proved against the Petitioner. The Labour Court has denied backwages to Petitioner. Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/5/2018. After retirement, Petitioner has fled the present petition to the limited extent of denial of backwages by the Labour Court. By Order dtd. 12/12/2019, this Court has admitted the petition by issuance of Rule. Petitioner has fled Interim Application No. 3420 of 2023 seeking expeditious hearing of the petition. Petition is taken up for fnal hearing with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) Mr. Inamdar the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Labour Court has erred in denying backwages to the Petitioner. That the only allegation levelled against the Petitioner was absence from duty for 7 days from 26/10/2010 to 2/11/2010 and for a further period of six days from 6/11/2010 to 11/11/2010. That for such miniscule misconduct of absence of 13 days, harsh penalty of dismissal could not have been imposed. That though the Labour Court has rightly set aside the penalty, it has failed to appreciate that Petitioner was unlawfully kept away from duties for a long period during 8/6/2011 till 24/12/2016 when he was actually reinstated in service. That award of backwages upon grant of relief of reinstatement is a normal rule. That Petitioner led evidence before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed. That the said assertion on the part of the Petitioner was neither contested nor disproved by Respondents by leading any evidence. That the Respondent-Corporation failed to examine any witness before the Labour Court. That Petitioner thus proved before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed. In such circumstances, award of backwages was eminent. He would pray for setting aside the Order of Labour Court to the extent of denial of backwages.