The main legal point established is that under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment and may deny back wages where the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct.

JUDGMENT

1. Cm APPL. 8699/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

LPA 93/2021, CM APPL. 8700/2021 (for condonation of 90 days delay in filing the appeal) & CM APPL. 8701/2021 (for condonation of 21 days delay in re-filing the appeal)

3. This intra court appeal impugns the common judgment dated 29th June, 2020 of dismissal of W.P.(C) 6214/2019 preferred by the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as well as of dismissal of W.P.(C) 6310/2019 filed by the appellant, both with respect to the award dated 11th February, 2019 of the Labour Court, in an industrial dispute raised by the appellant qua the order dated 23rd July, 2016 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent LIC of removal of appellant from service.

4. The Labour Court though directed reinstatement of the appellant but without back wages. While respondent LIC was aggrieved from the direction for reinstatement, the appellant was aggrieved from the denial of back wages.

5. We have, at the outset, enquired from the counsel for the appellant, whether the respondent LIC has preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment.

6. The answer is in the negative.

7. We have heard the counsel for the appellant qua interference, if any, required in this appeal with the consistent findings of the Labour Court as well as the Single Judge, of the appellant being not entitled to any back wages.

8. Though the counsel for the appellant, on enquiry as to what reasons prevailed with the Labour Court for denying back wages to the appellant despite granting the relief of reinstatement, states that no reasons whatsoever are to be found in the award of the Labour Court but a perusal of the award shows that the reasons which prevailed with the Labour Court, were (i) that Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment, in appropriate cases, though discretion in this respect is to be exercised judiciously, only in cases where punishment is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct of the workman / official concerned; (ii) the misconduct committed by the appellant was of disobedience of the transfer order dated 21st March, 2015 and not joining the transferred post in spite of being relieved from the erstwhile posting on 1st April, 2015 and remaining absent from duty w.e.f 2 nd April, 2015; (iii) a detailed departmental inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, following the principles of natural justice; (iv) the Disciplinary Authority of respondent LIC, before passing the order of removal of service, had issued a show cause notice and granted an opportunity to the appellant to represent his case against the punishment and only thereafter imposed the major penalty of removal from service; (v) that the unauthorised absence from duty is not a kind of misconduct involving moral turpitude or indulging in corrupt practices, warranting imposition of penalty of dismissal from service; (vi) the appellant had already rendered 27 years of unblemished service and the punishment of removal from service was harsh and disproportionate; and, (vii) ends of justice would be met, if punishment of removal from service was set aside and the appellant ordered to be reinstated into service, however without any pecuniary/monetary benefits during the intervening period i.e. from the date of his removal from service till publication of the award.

9. The counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment of the Single Judge affirming the denial of back wages to the appellant and in which paragraph, the Single Judge has relied upon Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Phool Chand, (2018) AIR SC 4534 and reproduced certain paragraphs thereof, inter alia holding (i) that workman has no right to claim back wages, as of right; (ii) it is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and p