D C M LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner besides challenging the award dated 28th September 1983 pf the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kola, Rajasthan (for short the Judge) has also challenged the vires of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I. D. Act ). So far as the challenge to the vires of Section 11-A of the I. D. Act is concerned, it may be slated that the challenge does not survive because earlier also by the same petitioner. D. C. M. Limited v. Shriram Fertilisers Karmachari Union, Chhawani, Kota had been challenged and the same was held to be valid. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of D. C. M. Ltd. v. Shriram Fertilisers Karmachari Union, Chhawani, Kota and Ors. , 1988 (1) R. L. R. P. 984 said that sufficient guidelines are provided Under Section 11-A of the I. D. Act to exclude arbitrariness and the aforesaid Section 11-A is not violative of Article14 of the Constitution. The challenge, therefore, to the aforesaid award is now confined to the limited extent as to whether there is error apparent on the face of the award of the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota or not ?

(2.) SOME facts are no longer disputed and they are these :

(3.) THE workman Shri Radha Kishan Sharma who is represented by the respondent No. 2 Shriram Rayons Karmachari Sangh, Kota was an employee in the Pilot Plant of M/s. Shriram Rayons, a unit of D. C. M. Ltd. Kota. He was employed for more than 12 years and during the year 1979 he was posted as supervisor in the said unit. He was absent from duty on 19th, 20th, 21st and 26th January 1979, 9th, 12th, 28th February, 1979, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 23rd, 30th and 31st March, 1979 and on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, April, 1979. There is no dispute between the parties that in accordance with the relevant Standing Orders to be absent without leave or overstaying after extension of leave is a misconduct. A charge-sheet dated 7th May, 1979 was given to Radha Kishan Sharma wherein it was clearly stated that without any permission or without getting his leave sanctioned, he remained absent as a result of which the normal functioning of the plant is affected. Besides giving the aforesaid dates on which the workman was absent without sanctioning the leave, it was also stated in the charge-sheet that on earlier occasions also he was absent without leave and charge-sheets were given to him. The first of the charge-sheet was given to him for absence for a period of 7 days from May, 1972 to October, 1973. After enquiry the charge was held proved and the punishment of suspension for a period of three days was inflicted upon him under order dated 21st February, 1974, The second charge was for the absence of 3 days during the period August; 1974 and October, 1974 and proceeded on leave without sanction. The workman accepted the charge and a penalty of suspension for two days was inflicted on him on 27. 2. 1974. The last of the aforesaid three charges was for the absence of 6 days in the month of November, 1977 and an enquiry was held against the workman which was held proved and the workman Radha Kishan Sharma was given a penalty of suspension for six days. It was also stated in the charge-sheet that despite the aforesaid three punishments on earlier occasions, the workman did not improve himself and he remained absent during the dates of which reference has already been made earlier. The workman filed reply to the aforesaid charges and the enquiry officer under a detailed report held that his absence without sanction of leave has been proved on all the dates of January, February, March and April 1979. The competent authority inflicted a penalty of removal from service on the petitioner.