NAURANG SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer made in this Civil Misc. Application is for early hearing of the writ petition.

(2.) This Court is thus of the opinion that once the workman had never raised any worthwhile defence, the authorities should have taken into consideration his long period of service which they failed to do so. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner has more than 17 years of service and by virtue of his dismissal order, he has lost out on his retiral benefits. As per the rules of the Department, the workman could have been duly punished by imposing lessor punishment which the Labour Court failed to take into consideration and did not exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act merely on the ground that the workman had retired during the period of reference. The misconduct was not that of misappropriation or embezzlement and only on the ground of absence, the long period of service from 1979 should have been taken into account by the Labour Court keeping in view the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act.

(3.) Normally for reconsideration of penalty imposed the matter would be remanded for reconsideration to the department. However, at this stage in view of the fact that the workman has already superannuated in the present case in 2003 and the services were terminated in 1996 it would not be appropriate to remand the matter to the department. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this Court can substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment as the Court is of the opinion that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chand v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others, 1999 AIR(SCW) 4911) while noticing that the employee had put in 28 years of service, converted the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement after taking into the fact that employer had superannuated. Similarly in B.S. Shirol v. Sri Veerbhadreshwar Education Society and others, 2004 13 SCC 619the Hon'ble Apex Court converted the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement but denied back wages. However, it was held that workman would be entitled for continuity of service for the purpose of calculating pension.