ORDER

The respondent workman when working as a conductor in the petitioner-Corporation was issued with Articles of charges as to why domestic enquiry should not be conducted for unauthorized absence from 1.3.2010.

2. Respondent-Workman did not choose to reply to the Articles of charges, and thereafter domestic enquiry was conducted, and Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges against the workman was proved.

3. The petitioner-Corporation after issuing show cause notice dismissed the workman from the service against which, the workman raised a dispute under Section 10 r/w Sec.2A of the amended Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be fair and proper.

4. The respondent-workman examined himself as WW.1 and marked documents at Exs.W.1 to W.7, and on the other hand, the petitioner-Corporation marked documents at Exs.M.1 to M.20. The Labour Court after examining the evidence on record held that the charge against the workman was proved and in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act, modified the order of dismissal into reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service with all consequential benefits by withholding two annual increments and with 50% back wages.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that the charge against the workman having been proved and also having recorded the fact that the workman had remained unauthorizedly absent on 15 occasions earlier, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable in law.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that, the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges, and the Labour Court taking into account the same, and in exercising power under Section 11-A of the Act, has rightly passed the impugned award and the same does not warrant any interference.

7. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The Labour Court recorded the finding that the workman had remained absent only for a period of eight days which is factually incorrect, and evidence on record establishes that the workman remained unauthorizedly absent from 1.3.2010 till 9.7.2010, i.e., the date of issuance of Articles of charges.

9. It is also undisputed fact that the workman had on

15 occasions earlier had remained unauthorizedly absent. Hence, the impugned punishment imposed by the Labour Court is on the lower side having regard to the fact that the workman had remained unauthorizedly absent from 1.3.2010 to 9.7.2010, and also remained unauthorizedly absent on 15 occasions earlier. Hence, to this extent, the impugned award requires to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

ii) The impugned award dated 16.8.2017 passed in Ref.No.37/2015 by the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is hereby modified and consequently, the claim petition under Section 10 r/w Sec.2A of the amended Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed in part.

(iii) The respondent-workman is entitled for reinstatement into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and without consequential benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement.

(iv) The respondent-workman is not entitled for back wages and the impugned award withholding of 2 annual increments with cumulative effect is hereby set aside.

Hence, to this extent, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court stands modified.