The termination of an employee for chronic absenteeism and unauthorized absence can be justified if the enquiry proceedings are legal and proper, and the employee's denial of back wages is not sympathetic.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Koregave, learned Advocate for Petitioner.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned common judgment dated 01.04.2017 passed by the learned Industrial Court No.1, Maharashtra at Kolhapur in Revision (ULP) Nos.90 of 2014 and 131 of 2014.

3. Revision Applications were filed under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “MRTU and PULP Act”) by both parties to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ratnagiri in Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2001, wherein a mixed verdict was given by the Labour Court, inter alia, in respect of unfair labour practice having been committed by Respondent – Company and in pursuance thereof a direction was given to the Company to reinstate the Petitioner and pay Rs.60,000/-as lumpsum compensation to Petitioner in lieu of denial of back wages by the Petitioner. Company filed Revision Application No. 90 of 2014 for setting aside the findings and judgment of the Labour Court in respect of declaration of unfair labour practice, quashing of termination order and grant of compensation whereas Petitioner filed Revision Application No.131 of 2014 being aggrieved with non-granting of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

4. Briefly stated, Petitioner was employed as a Technical Officer with Respondent – Company since 1988. He was issued charge-sheet on 06.07.2001 for remaining repeatedly and unauthorizedly absent from duty / work without intimation / without leave for the period - 09.05.2001 to 16.07.2001. Record reveals that Petitioner remained habitually absent from work without intimation or leave in the year 1998 (for 44.5 days), in the year 1999 (for 63.5 days) and in the year 2000 (for 144 days) and the said fact was mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 06.07.2001 issued to him. There is no denying of the fact that Petitioner was guilty of chronic absenteeism which is reflected in both the judgments passed by the learned Labour Court as also the learned Industrial Court. What is significant and crucial to note is the fact that before the Labour Court, Petitioner himself admitted the fact that he earned a net income of Rs.2,50,000/- per year by engaging himself in his milk business during the said period and was thus gainfully employed and in that view of the matter he had refused back wages.

5. The learned Labour Court held that in view of refusal of back wages by the Petitioner, he would be entitled to lumpsum compensation of Rs.60,000/- which, prima facie, on the face of record being a perverse finding was dealt with by the learned Industrial Court accordingly in Revision proceedings, the judgment of the Labour Court was thus interfered with and set aside.

6. That apart, on the merits of the matter, the charge-sheet issued to Petitioner stated that he was guilty of dereliction on charges in terms of the following clauses:-

(i) Clause 24(a) – willful and insubordination or disobedience;

(ii) Clause 24(f) – habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days or overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation;

(iii) Clause 24(h) – habitual breach of any standing order or any law applicable to the establishment or any rules made thereunder; and

(iv) Clause 25(m) – habitual neglect of work or gross or habitual negligence as per the Model Standing Orders.

7. It is seen that apart from chronic absenteeism which was a repeated feature, Petitioner was given adequate opportunities for almost 4 years to improve his conduct by the Company prior to issuance of the charge-sheet in question in the year 2001. However, he failed and continued to remain unauthorizedly absent even then with impunity. Both learned Courts have given a finding and clearly held that the enquiry held by the Enquiry