IMPORTANT POINT
The limitations of the Writ Court in determining the factual matrix and the scope of power to issue a writ of certiorari.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and set aside the impugned award dated 01.10.2016 and order dated 22.08.2016 on issue of enquiry and allow the statement of claim of workman/petitioner and treat him as reinstated to service allow full back wages and continuity of service but since he has died, the relief be moulded in monetary terms or otherwise as this Hon'bie Court may deem fit and proper in favour of his LRs, the present petitioner on the facts and circumstances of the case;

Any other relief which this Hon'bie Court may deem fit and proper be passed as well as the cost of the proceedings be awarded."

2. The petitioner joined the respondent Corporation in 1977, and was working as a conductor in the respondent Corporation. During the year 1990-91, the petitioner had taken 92 leaves without intimating the authorities, thereby leading to issuance of show cause notices seeking reasons for such casualty.

3. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation constituted an inquiry committee and conducted the inquiry leading to recommendation of removal from services as a penalty. The said decision was sent to the Industrial Tribunal for approval and the same was duly approved vide order dated 20th November, 2001.

4. Aggrieved by the removal, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1020/2002. In the said petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court referred back the matter to the Learned Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The learned Tribunal again reaffirmed the earlier stance and approved the application filed by the respondent Corporation for removal of the petitioner from the services.

5. The petitioner preferred another Writ Petition No. 3358/2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of the dispute.

6. Consequently, the petitioner raised the Industrial Dispute before the learned Labour Court whereby the petitioner's contentions were rejected by the learned Court and the removal order was upheld vide orders dated 22nd August, 2016 and 1st October, 2016.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the impugned orders dated 22nd August, 2016 and 1st October, 2016.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner lives in Sonepat, Haryana, and was constrained to take the said leaves due to the recurring ill health of his wife and children, during the said time period.

9. It is submitted that the petitioner had sent his leave applications along with medical certificates through his friends, however, the same were not taken under consideration by the officials of the respondent Corporation.

10. It is submitted that the respondent Corporation initiated the inquiry hastily and did not provide any chance to the petitioner to present his case leading to violation of principles of natural justice.

11. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the punishment of removal was too harsh and disproportionate to the wrong committed by the petitioner.

12. Hence, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed on behalf of the petitioner, that the present petition may be allowed.

13. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the present petition submitting to the effect that the learned Labour Court rightly dismissed the claim raised by the petitioner.

14. It is submitted that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during the tenure of his services, and there are 13 adverse entries against the irregularities committed by th