JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 30.7.2020 rendered by the labour Court in adjudication Case No. 16 of 2009 (Satish Kumar v. Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Saharanpur) deciding the reference against the employer and directing the respondent No. 3 workman to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. The labour Court in the impugned award has held the workman entitled to 50% of the backwages for the period of his termination.

2. The reference before the labour Court was as to whether the termination of services of the respondent No. 3 workman Satish Kumar on 7.5.2005 were valid and legal.

3. Shri Jagram Singh and Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsels for the petitioner pointing the fault lines in the award submit that the labour Court neglected to consider the findings returned by the enquiry officer. The labour Court did not return findings on relevant issues upon an independent enquiry while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (Section 6(2)(a) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act). The absence of the workman was willful and findings to the contrary in the impugned award are perverse. The punishment was proportionate to the nature of the misconduct and was not liable to be reversed.

4. Sri Gopal Naraian Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 workman submits that the labour Court had exercised its power under Section 6(2)(a) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as consistent with the statutory mandate. The labour Court was under an obligation of law to enquire into the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. The employer had erred in law by imposing a disproportionate punishment for the misconduct the respondent No. 3 was charged with.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The relevant and undisputed facts essential for just adjudication of the controversy can be priced out from the record of the writ petition. No useful purpose will be served by exchanging affidavits. With the consent of parties the writ petition is being decided finally.

The respondent No. 3 workman was a conductor in the U.P.S.R.T.C. Two charge-sheets were drawn up against the respondent No. 3 on 28.8.2003 and 27.4.2004 wherein various charges of departmental misconduct were laid out. In substance the charge against the respondent No. 3 workman was that he willfully absented himself from duty for various periods. The periods of willful absence which became the subject-matter of the domestic enquiries are extracted below:

(I) 28.3.2003 to 27.11.2003.

(II) 19.12.2003 to 24.12.2003.

(III) 29.12.2003 to 14.1.2004.

(IV) Continuous absence with effect from 18.1.2004.

7. The domestic enquiries indicted the workman of all charges laid out against him. The disciplinary authority on the footing of the findings of guilt made by the domestic enquiry against the respondent No. 3 workman passed the punishment of dismissal from service.

8. The domestic enquiry reports into the two charge-sheets were submitted on 11.7.2004 and 13.9.2004.

9. The labour Court in the impugned award has found that the enquiries were conducted in adherence to law. No fault or illegality in the conduct of the enquiry could be established before the labour Court. Accordingly the impugned award upheld the enquiry reports.

The challenge to the proportionality of the punishment for the misconduct the respondent No. 3 was charged with became the sole issue of consideration by the labour Court.

10. The domestic enquiry report dated 11.7.2004 enquired into period of absence of the respondent No. 3 workman from 28.3.2003 to 27.11.2003. Before the enquiry officer the only defence tendered by the respondent No. 3 workman was that his absence for various period was not willful and the same was caused by the terminal ill-health of his wife. The respondent No. 3 also claimed that he had sent leave applications alongwith medical certificates to the petitioner by U.P.C. postal mode. The enquiry officer found