IMPORTANT POINT
Where a conductor in State Transport Corporation remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for three years, punishment of dismissal from service ought not be interfered with by Tribunal or High Court.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW—Dismissal from service—Respondent working as a conductor in appellant Corporation remained absent for a long period from duty unauthorisedly—He was dismissed from service on being found guilty of misconduct—Labour Court found that respondent remained absent from 27.11.1990 to 2.12.1993 and thus committed misconduct but held that denial of back wages and continuity of service from date of dismissal till reinstatement was appropriate punishment and directed reinstatement—Writ petition against the award was dismissed—Appeal—Remaining absent for a long time could not be said to be a minor misconduct and it could not be treated lightly—High Court or Tribunal in exercise of its power of Judicial review would not normally interfere with quantum of punishment—Impugned judgment could not be sustained.
       Held : Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated lightly. (Para 8)
       Yet recently in State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276], it was opined that the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon by the Respondent stating :
       “It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High Court or the Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. Doctrine of proportionally can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well-settled that the High Court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment, unless it is found to be shocking to one’s conscience.”(Para 10)
       For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 2.03.2005 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 3976 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the writ appeal filed by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 11.06.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court in W.P. No. 25259 of 1999 was dismissed.

3. The Respondent was working as a conductor. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 27.11.1990 to 02.12.1990. He did not report for duty with effect from 16.05.1992. His leave records were seen and it was found that he had repeatedly remained unauthorisedly absent. On the aforementioned charges, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was found guilty of commission of the said misconduct and was directed to be dismissed from service by an order dated 6.08.1994. He raised an industrial dispute in relation to the said order of dismissal from service culminating in a reference being made by the Government of Karnataka to Labour Court, Gulbarga for resolution of the said dispute. A preliminary issue was raised before the Labour Court and by a judgment and order dated 30.04.1996, it was found that the disciplinary proceedings held as against the Respondent was not fair and legal. The parties thereafter adduced their respective evidence before the Labour Court. By an award dated 28.06.1996, it was held that the Respondent remained absent from 27.11.1990 to 02.12.1993 and, thus, committed a misconduct. It was, however, opined :

“23. In a normal course the reasonable punishment would be to disallow the back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal to till the date of reinstatement. But in this case the D.E. has been set aside and the claimant has been granted interim relief. If the back wages and continuity of service are disallowed from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement the punishment would be somewhat unreasonable one. I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to disallow the back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal, i.e. 6-8-94 till the date of granting the interim relief, i.e., 29.1.95 as a lesser punishment.”

It was, however, directed :

“The Respondent is directed to reinstate the claimant I-Party to his original post. The claimant I-Party is entitled for back wages at the rate of 75% of the wages what he was getting at the time of dismissal or 75% of the wages in the current rate whichever is more from the date of granting the interim relief 30.1.95. The claimant is deemed to have been continued in service from the said date.

It is hereby ordered that the claimant I-Party is not entitled for back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., 6.8.94 to till the date of granting the interim relief i.e, 29.1.95 as a lesser punishment. I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs.”

4. A writ petition was filed thereagainst by the Appellant which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court holding:

“When a worker has remained unauthorisedly absent for such a long duration in the normal circumstances, Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the management but in the facts of the case, the workman was awarded some interim relief in the year 1995 and by an interim order of this court in the year 1999 he has been reinstated and has been working.

Taking these factors into consideration and having regard to the long absence of the workman, it is a fit case that he should be denied the payment of back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.”

5. As noticed hereinbefore, the writ appeal filed by the Appellant has been dismissed.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant would submit that the Labour Court as also the High Court committed a serious error in arriving at a finding that absenting oneself from duty for such a long time can be treated to be a minor misconduc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 499

IMPORTANT POINTWhere a conductor in State Transport Corporation remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for three years, punishment of dismissal from service ought not be interfered with by Tribunal or High Court.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a conductor in State Transport Corporation remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for three years, punishment of dismissal from service ought not be interfered with by Tribunal or High Court.