The punishment should be proportionate to the guilt, and reinstatement does not automatically warrant back wages.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - Eastern Coal Fields Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'management') filed this writ petition challenging the award dated April 17, 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer Central Industrial Tribunal can Labour Court, Asansol (for short 'the Tribunal') in Reference Case no. 18 of 2004. By the impugned award, management was directed to reinstate the workman i.e., the respondent no. 1 herein from the date of dismissal that i.e., 18/20-05-1999 with stoppage of two increment and to withhold 50% back wages.

2. In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act'), the Government of India vide order dated February 25, 2004 referred the dispute as to whether the action of the management in dismissing Sri Lachman Bhuiya from service vide letter dated 18/20.05.1999 is legal and justified for adjudication by the Tribunal. Tribunal upon receipt of the order dated February 25, 2004 initiated the Reference Case no. 18 of 2004 and issued notices to the respective parties.

3. The case of the union in the written statement filed before the Tribunal is that the workman was a permanent employee of the company. He absented from his duty with effect from December 18, 1998 due to sickness and being declared fit he reported to the management but he was not allowed to resume his duty. The workman was informed that his service has been terminated. It is the further case of the union that in spite of the fact that the workman kept informed to the management about his sickness, even then he was chargesheeted for alleged unauthorised absence from duty. The workman was not served with the copy of the chargesheet, notice of enquiry and the principles of natural justice was denied to him and it was contended that he was illegally and unlawfully dismissed from service by the management. He accordingly prayed for reinstatement in his service with all consequential benefits arising therefrom with effect from the date of his dismissal.

4. The management in its written statement contended that the workman absented from his duties since 18.12.1998 without any permission or informing the competent authority. It is the further case of the management that the workman concerned had been very irregular in attending his duties for which the employer issued the chargesheet dated 08.01.1999 for habitual absentism. The workman did not file any reply to chargesheet. Subsequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry.

Since the workman did not attend the domestic enquiry in spite of several notices being served upon him, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty for the charges established. The management accordingly dismissed the workman from his service on 18.05.1999. Thus, according to the management the workman is not entitled to any relief.

5. An award was passed by the then Presiding Officer on July 18, 2007 upholding the aforesaid punishment against the workman. The workman challenged the said award dated July 18, 2008 by filing a writ petition being WP 663 of 2008. The said writ petition was allowed by a co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court by an order dated June 14, 2010 by setting aside the part of the order regarding punishment with a direction upon the Tribunal to pass a reasoned order upon revising the original order. The co-ordinate bench was pleased to make the following observation-

'I find from the said order of the learned Judge that the charge against the delinquent workman is more or less established, without any contest.

I am not satisfied with the finding regarding punishment. In 1996 there is absence of 69 days, in 1997 of 50 days and in 1998 of 20 days. Punishment should be proportionate to the guilt. It should never be excessive. It ought not to be such as would sound unreasonable. After all, there is the question of employment of a workman who is