M. L. NARSAIAH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dtd. 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22116 of 2011.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant/employee was appointed as a Conductor on 29/01/1981 and on 21/09/2007, he fell down in the depot premises due to heart stroke and he was taken to hospital by his colleagues. As his condition deteriorated, he was not able to attend the duties, however submitted sick leave applications from time to time. The undisputed facts also reveal that the appellant/employee has undergone a heart surgery earlier in 2003 and he was subjected to periodical check-up after every fifteen days at NIMS Hospital and the employer was well aware about his medical condition. The appellant/employee was absent for 39 days only and the employer issued a charge sheet on account of his alleged unauthorised absence. While all this was going on, meaning thereby an employee, who was medically unwell struggling with his health, met with again an unfortunate incident in which his daughter, who was unwell, was admitted to Apollo Hospital and she expired on 28/09/2008. He requested the authorities to grant him leave and instead of cooperating with such an employee, the Depot Manager, based upon the enquiry report, issued a show cause notice on 01/10/2008 seeking his explanation as to why his services should not be put to an end. The appellant/employee, who was still doing rituals in respect of his deceased daughter, was forced to submit a reply, and a final order was passed putting an end to the services of the appellant/employee on 29/10/2008. An appeal was preferred and it was dismissed on 11.05.2009. Thereafter, a review petition was preferred and the same was also dismissed on 18/07/2009. The employee in question approached the Labour Court and an award was passed on 07.02.2011 rejecting the claim of the appellant/employee. The award was subjected to judicial scrutiny and the learned Single Judge has also held that there is no infirmity in the departmental enquiry and the Labour Court was justified in passing the award upholding the order of removal.

(3.) This Court has carefully gone through the facts of the case and the award passed by the Labour Court. The appellant/employee was charge-sheeted for 39 days of absence. He himself was a heart patient. He was admitted to hospital. He lost his daughter and in those circumstances, he was absent for 39 days. It is true that the employer has conducted departmental enquiry. However, for 39 days of absence, punishment of removal has been inflicted upon him. The aforesaid punishment is certainly shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of the appellant/employee and the Labour Court ought to have interfered with the punishment order, keeping in view sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same has not been done.