IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 09.09.2025 GURSEWAK SINGH … Appellant (s)

Versus CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND ANOTHER ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The appellant has impugned the judgment of the Single Bench dated 01.04.2025 whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 challenging the award dated 26.03.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-workman submits that although the appellant had remained absent from service as he was unwell, but he had been taken back in service unconditionally by respondent No.1 and therefore, the Labour Court had rightly held that the appellant’s services had been terminated illegally. The Writ Court ought not to have set aside the award of the Labour Court.

3. Heard.

4. It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as a Conductor by respondent No.1 on 11.08.1982. He remained absent from duty from 19.10.1988 to 01.11.1988 after he had been granted medical leave on account of back ailment. However, he did not resume his duty on 01.11.1988 and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Communications sent to the appellant were received back with the report that he was ‘out of station’. The appellant did not participate in the proceedings despite publications in three newspapers in March, 1989 and consequently, he was proceeded against ex- parte. The charge of absence from service without leave was proved. The appellant was issued notice asking him to show-cause why his services be not terminated. The appellant indeed submitted his joining report on 13.03.1991 stating that he was now cured and fit to resume his duties. He was allowed to join duty by the General Manager from 10.04.1991 as the appellant had stated that the show cause notice dated 06.04.1990 was served upon him only on 21.03.1991. Thereafter, the Divisional Manager called him for personal hearing on 03.02.1993 and after considering the reply preferred by the appellant, the Divisional Manager terminated his services vide order dated 15.03.1993. The appellant had challenged the order dated 15.03.1993 by preferring an appeal which was dismissed on 11.11.1993. In the meantime, the appellant had sent a demand notice on 24.05.1993 and a reference was made to Labour Court on

11.01.1995.

5. The Labour Court, in its award while holding that the inquiry was fair and proper, invoked section 11-Aand modified the punishment from termination of services to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, on the ground that the punishment of termination of service was disproportionate to the misconduct. It also directed that the period of absence from duty be treated as leave without pay. However, the award of the Labour Court was challenged by respondent No.1 by preferring writ petition. The Single Bench, after observing that the appellant had proceeded on unauthorized leave for almost 2 ½ years and had offered no explanation for the same except for an unsubstantiated explanation of illness, had arrived at the conclusion that the appropriate punishment for such grave misconduct of prolonged absence from duty without leave, was dismissal from service. The Single Bench had set aside the award of the Labour Court while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar 2023 SCC Online SC 56wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that in exercise of powers of judicial review, the writ Court is empowered to modify the punishment if it is found to be ‘strikingly disproportionate’ to the charges proved. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:-

“6.2 xxx xxx In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High C