Failure to comply with leave regulations justified dismissal of employee for chronic absenteeism.

ORDER:

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the Award, dated 29.09.2005 passed in I.D.No.128 of 2002 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal.

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis in the year 1992, and his services were later regularized in the year 1997. Since then, he has been discharging his duties without any complaint. During the month of December 1999, he suffered ill-health due to jaundice and was unable to attend his duties. He reported the same to the Depot Supervisor, who did not grant any leave.

(b) The petitioner underwent Ayurvedic treatment at Tenali and sent his leave letter along with a medical certificate. As his health condition did not permit him to attend duty as a Driver, he remained absent and informed the same to the Depot Supervisor. Though a notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the conduct of an enquiry, he could not attend the enquiry as he was out of station and did not submit any reply. Consequently, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 09.02.2000. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent issued a show-cause notice and finally passed order dated 01.03.2000, removing the petitioner from service.

(c) Aggrieved by the order, dated 01.03.2000, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 02.09.2002, rejected the appeal. Further aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a review before the 2nd respondent, who also rejected the review vide order, dated 07.11.2002. Challenging the order dated 07.11.2002 passed by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner filed I.D. No. 128 of 2002 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal (for short ‘the Labour Court’), which was dismissed on 29.09.2005. Challenging the order dated 29.09.2005, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court did not properly appreciate the facts and passed the impugned order solely based on the documents produced by the Management. The Labour Court ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner had not previously received any memo or charge sheet regarding absenteeism, and that his absence for two months was due to severe illness. It is further submitted that, due to financial constraints and his health condition, the petitioner was unable to submit his explanation. The Labour Court ought to have seen that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is shocking and disproportionate to the charge levelled against him.

5. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Award, dated 29.09.2005 and allow the writ petition.

6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating as follows:

(a) The petitioner was engaged as a Driver on a daily wage basis on 22.03.1993, and his services were regularized with effect from 09.03.1998. The respondents had imposed several punishments on the petitioner on similar grounds of unauthorized absence, and he had been removed twice prior to the present removal.

(b) The petitioner absented himself from duty from 03.12.1999 onwards, which was brought to the notice of the respondents by the Traffic Inspector through a report dated 13.12.1999. Based on the said report, a charge sheet dated 12.01.2000 was issued to the petitioner framing the following charge: “For having absented for duties unauthorizedly from 03.12.1999 onwards without intimation or sanction of leave, which constitutes misconduct under Regula