FRANCIS XAVIER Vs. MAGNA GRAPHICS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed under the respondent no. 1 company and he was awarded punishment of dismissal by an order dated 24-8-1995 on the ground of habitual absenteeism. This order was challenged in Complaint (ULP) No. 317 of 1995 filed under Section 28 read with Items l (b) , l (d) , l (e) and l (g) of Schedule IV of the mrtu and PULP Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short). The Labour Court dismissed that complaint vide its judgment and order dated 17-4-1996 and the same was challenged in revision application (ULP) No. 63 of 19% which came to be dismissed by the learned President, industrial Court of Maharusntra on 2-9-1996.

(2.) The charge-sheet dated 6-3-1995 had charged him of remaining absent for a period of 32 days during the months of May, July, august, November and December, 1994. The employee submitted his reply to the said charge- sheet on 16-3-1995 and denied that he was the case of habitual absenteeism. He also contested the claim of days of absence and defended that he had applied for leave and the leave was recommended by the concerned supervisor and therefore, for majority of the days, he could not have been marked as absent without leave. The Management, therefore proceeded to conduct the domestic enquiry in which the workman participated. He was also defended by the Union representative whereas Mr. Bhupalsingh was the Management's representative. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 18-5-1995 and held that the charge of habitual absence without leave was duly proved. The Management forwarded a copy of the enquiry report calling for his say on the same and also furnished his recent past record vide its letter dated 25-5-1995. The workman submitted his defence statement on 10-6-1995 and the dismissal order dated 24-8- 1995 followed.

(3.) In the dismissal order, the management went to the extent of holding that from 10th to 19th May, 1994, the workman could not attend his duties because of the alleged injury sustained by him and therefore, after giving allowances for these ten days' absence, the days of absence during the period of above said five months, came to 22 days. His past record of service was considered and it was noted that inspite of repeated opportunities having been provided to him for improving his record of attendance, his attendance record remained dismal and therefore, it proceeded to award punishment of dismissal as he did not show any improvement/reformation. Before the Labour court, it was conceded that the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. The emphasis laid by the workman before the Labour Court was that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate with reference to the misconduct and therefore, the order of dismissal was illegal. This implied that the complaint filed before the Labour Court was pressed only under item No. 1 (g) of schedule IV of the Act. The said Items reads as under : 1. To discharge or dismiss the employees:-