Dismissal of an employee with a long service record for a short period of unauthorized absence, especially when supported by medical evidence, is disproportionate; the Labour Court's exercise of power under Section 11(A) of the I.D. Act to award partial back wages is justified.

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner authority is impugning the award dated 10.05.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Godhra, whereby the dismissal of the respondent No.2 workman has been set aside and the respondent No.2 was reinstated with continuity in service with 25% back wages.

2. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 14.02.2014 has passed the following order :-

“Heard learned advocate Mr. G. M. Joshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod for the respondent No.2.

RULE. During the pendency of the petition, there shall be stay of the impugned judgment and order to the extent that it awards 25% back wages on the condition that the workman shall be reinstated in service within two weeks from today.

Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-workman.”

3. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 workman has been reinstated in service on 30.05.2016 and he has superannuated in the year 2021, which is not in dispute. Since the petitioner has complied with part of the award, the only question which remains to be decided is with respect to 25% back wages as awarded to the respondent No.2 workman by the learned Labour Court.

4. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the respondent No.2 workman was unauthorizedly absent from his duty from 18.11.2005 till 20.12.2005. It has also come on record that the respondent No.2 had produced medical certificate dated 21.12.2005 upon his rejoining the service, wherein it was stated that he was suffering from fever. The respondent No.2 in his oral evidence has stated that he was suffering from typhoid fever during the said period of absence.

5. The record further reveals that the said medical certificate was not accepted by the petitioner authority and an inquiry came to be instituted for his unauthorized absence and the respondent No.2 came to be dismissed from service for such unauthorized absence. The respondent No.2 had put in more than 15 years of service as on the date of his dismissal. The learned Labour Court has observed that the punishment imposed for an unauthorized absence was disproportionate and in exercise of power under Section 11 (A) of the I.D.Act, the learned Labour Court has set aside the dismissal, for being unjust and disproportionate. Further, in his oral evidence, the respondent No.2 workman has stated that after his dismissal from service, he was working as a Driver as and when called for. On the basis of such evidence, the learned Labour Court has granted 25% back wages. Further nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that the respondent No.2 was gainfully employed during the period of his dismissal till his reinstatement.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, 25% back wages as granted by the learned Labour Court is just and proper. No interference is called for in the impugned order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (LCG) No. 26 of 2008. The present writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.