Disciplinary actions must consider genuine health issues, and procedural shortcomings alone should not warrant dismissal.

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed under ArticleS.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 27.06.2008 passed in KID.No.37/2003 on the file of Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Hubli, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’] whereunder, the petition filed by the respondent/workman under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1987) Act of 1947, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’], was partly allowed, the order of dismissal of the workman dated 13.05.2003 was set aside, and the workman was reinstated into service with continuity of service and benefits without back wages.

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the workman was appointed as a trainee conductor on 20.10.1998. It was alleged that he did not report for duty for a total period of 443 days. An Articles of Charge was issued, which was replied by the workman, contending, inter alia, that he was unable to report for duty due to health issues. That although he had applied for medical leave, the management treated his absence as unauthorized. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were held to be proved, and the workman was dismissed from service on 13.05.2003. Being aggrieved, the workman filed a petition under Section 10 (4-A) of the I.D. Act.

3. The Corporation entered appearance before the Labour Court and contested the same. The Labour Court held Issue No.1 in favour of the Corporation, holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. However, the Labour Court noticed that the workman had submitted necessary documents i.e., doctor’s Certificate, medical reports, etc., with regard to the medical treatment he had undergone. Accordingly, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement without back wages, but with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

4. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present petition.

5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Corporation that the medical certificate produced was not for the relevant period and that the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority ought not to have been interfered with by the Labour Court.

6. The Labour Court, while appreciating the material on record, has held that there were sufficient and reasonable grounds for the workman’s absence from duty from January- 2001 to September-2001. Further, the Labour Court recorded the following findings:

11. Those documents concerning sickness and treatment of petitioner is produced before the enquiring authority by the management. In the domestic enquiry the petitioner has given evidence to the effect that he was suffering from Typhoid as well as there was swelling in the liver. Despite of production of doctor's certificate, scrological report, etc., the enquiring authority did not believe its contents. Since, the petitioner did not apply for leave on medical grounds in January 2001, since, the doctor certificate is not enclosed along with the leave application, it is treated that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on duty. Why the contents of the doctor's certificate and scrological report is not believed by the management is not at all discussed. No reasons are assigned for disbelieving the evidence of the petitioner produced in the domestic enquiry. It is not the case of the management that the security officers confidentially enquired the doctor as well as pathologist and there was information that the documents produced by the petitioner are fabricated. Unless and until rebuttal evidence is produced by the management, there was no reason for the enquiring officer to reject the contents of the medical certificate as well as the scrological report. All the scrological repor