IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a fair domestic enquiry and proportional punishment for habitual unauthorized absence from duty are essential under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the burden of proof lies with the workman to demonstrate any justification for absence.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Rahul Basak, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Sagar, AC to SC-III appearing on behalf of the respondent- State of Jharkhand.

3. Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, learned counsel is appearing on behalf of the respondent- SAIL.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders to set aside the award dated 26.03.2021 (Annx-5) which was pronounced on 04.01.2022 rendered in the Reference Case No. 11/2008 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City whereby the learned Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City has held that the dismissal of the workman namely Kutubuddin Ansari (now dead) on the allegations of absence from working in Hot Zone against the Charge-sheet No. Pers/W/Co & BPP/COD/022/96-986 dated 15.02.1996 and giving cumulative effect of the charge-sheets of earlier absence which have earlier been dealt with which are not the subject matter of the charge- sheet for which order of punishment of dismissal has been meted out and no such enquiry papers have been filed before the learned Labour Court. However, order of dismissal has been upheld by the learned Presiding Officer holding the dismissal of the workman to be justified and that he is not entitled to any relief or relief(s).”

5. This writ petition has been filed by the wife of the workman challenging the award dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure-5) passed in Reference Case No. 11 of 2008, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro has answered the reference against the workman namely Kutubuddin Ansari (deceased) and in favour of the respondent management. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition has been filed by the widow of the workman as there could be some post death and other monetary benefits accruing to her in case the award is set aside and decided in favour of the deceased workman.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge memo dated 15.02.1996 was issued to the workman for absence of 67 days in a span of 6 months and enquiry was held. The enquiry officer held the workman not only guilty for 67 days absence but also found that the petitioner was guilty of absence for 140 days during the year 1995 and 132 days in the year 1996 but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Labour Court which makes the award ex-facie perverse.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the workman has been held guilty of habitual absence from duty without prior permission, but the absence was not willful, rather it was due to his illness supported by medical certificates and applications and therefore, the order of dismissal from service could not be sustained in the eyes of law.

8. He has also submitted that the learned Labour Court heard the case without deciding on the point of fairness of enquiry as a preliminary issue and the case was decided on the preliminary issue and also on merit, at one stroke.

9. The learned counsel has further submitted that the charge of absence without prior permission was for a total period of 67 days and accordingly, the order of punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charge leveled and proved against the concerned workman (deceased).

10. He submits that the impugned award calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being perverse and the punishment being shockingly disproportionate.

Findings of this Court.

11. The charge memo dated 15.02.1996 which ultimately led to dismissal of the concerned workman has been placed on record. The charge against the workman was that the workman was in the habit of remaining absent from duty without