Disproportionate punishment can be reduced in the interest of justice under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 15. 2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000. It has been stated that the first respondent herein had raised an industrial dispute, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, before the second respondent labour Court, to set aside the order of dismissal issued on him, on the ground that it is against the law and the principles of natural justice. The first respondent had claimed reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

3. It has been submitted that the first respondent had joined as a driver in the petitioner Corporation, on 30.6.1992. His last drawn salary was Rs.5,000/-, per month. While so, a charge memo, dated 12. 1997, had been issued to the first respondent for his continuous absent from duty, from 211. 1997. The first respondent has stated that though he did not receive the charge memo, the petitioner Management had conducted an enquiry. A show cause notice, dated 25. 1998, had been issued to the first respondent stating that the charges levelled against him had been proved. Therefore, he was dismissed from service, on 17. 1998. The first respondent had also stated that he was absent from duty, from 211. 1997 to 12. 1998, due to his sudden illness. He had also stated, before the second respondent labour Court, that he had submitted an explanation and that he was absent from duty as he was on leave, after appropriate intimation had been given to the petitioner Management. It was alleged that the charge memo had been issued without any basis and the first respondent had been dismissed from service without giving him sufficient opportunity to defend himself.

4. It has also been stated that the petitioner Corporation had filed a detailed counter statement, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, on the file of the second respondent labour Court. In the said counter statement it was contended that the first respondent was absent from duty, from 211. 1997, without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave. The said act of the first respondent had resulted in dislocation in the operation of the buses by the petitioner Corporation. An explanation had been called for from the first respondent, on 12. 1997. However, the first respondent had not submitted his explanation. The first respondent was absent from duty till 12. 1998. However, he had participated in the enquiry and he had given evidence during the domestic enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry report had been submitted by the enquiry officer, on 14. 1998, holding that the charges against the first respondent had been proved. Therefore, a second show cause notice had been issued to the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent had submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the first respondent, he was dismissed from service by the Management of the petitioner Corporation. In such circumstances, the first respondent had raised an Industrial Dispute, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, before the second respondent labour Court.

5. It has been further stated that the second respondent labour Court, without considering the evidence on record, had passed the award, dated 15. 2002, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 17. 1998, passed by the Management of the petitioner Corporation, dismissing the first respondent from service and it had directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent, without backwages, with continuity of service and other benefits and had awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect.

6. Aggrieved by the said award, dated 15. 2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000, passed by the second respondent labour Court, the petitioner Corporation has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constit