JAYSING PANDURANG SAWANT Vs. THE MAHARASHTRA CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was in the employment of the first respondent as a semi-skilled 'A' grade workman in the painting section from the year 1968. His services were terminated with effect from 18th Jan., 1975, after he was served with a charge sheet and a domestic enquiry held in which it was proved that he remained absent without obtaining prior leave from 16th July, 1974 to 20th July, 1974 and from 23rd July, 1974 to 27th July, 1974.

(2.) A vefedence was made to the Labour Court, Kolhapur, presided over by the second respondent, with regard to the demand of the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of services and full back wages. The learned Labour Judge, on appreciation of the evidence adduced before him came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved but the punishment inflicted on him was harsh and excessive and accordingly by his award dated 18th May, 1980, he directed the first respondent to appoint the petitioner all afresh as helper painter in the semi-skilled category as a fresh appointee. The learned Labour Judge rejected the claim of the petitioner with regard to the back wages. In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged the said award and asked for the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services.

(3.) On going through the record produced before us and hearing the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides, we find that the petitioner was employed in the year 1968 by the first respondent which is a Co-operative Society. Right from the year 1969, memos and warnings for late and irregular attendance and absence from work without permission were given on a number of occasions to the petitioner. The record further shows that the petitioner had remained absent from work on many occasions without obtaining prior leave or without submitting medical certificates with regard to his so called sickness. Therefore, the learned Labour Judge was of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the excessive and harsh punishment is set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be re-appointed all afresh. On hearing Mr. Suryavanshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we feel that although nothing much can be said against the impugned ward passed by the learned Labour Judge it would have been in the fitness of things to have granted the petitioner the continuity of services. We feel so because the petitioner was in the continuous employment of the first respondent from the year 1968 till his services were terminated and he should not loose all the terminal benefits merely because he did not conduct himself properly inasmuch as he regularly remained absent from his work without obtaining leave or submitting medical certificates. For such a delinquent act on the part of a workman, punishment of toss of back wages would, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. For the kind of the misconduct which the petitioner indulged in the harsh punishment of loss of total terminal benefits is not called for. It is to that extent, we find the impugned award made by the learned Labour Judge as defective.