(BY SRI: L GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE) v. KOLAR DISTRICT

(BY SRI: L GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND : J SUBRAMANYAM, S/O GURAPPA, EX-DRIVER, BADGE NO.6432, KSRTC., FIRST DEPOT, MYSORE URBAN DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP ROAD, MYSORE, R/O HANASENAHALLI, BANGARPET POST AND TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD IN REF.NO.46/2007 DATED 29.08.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER The petitioner has called in question the award in Ref. No.46/2007 dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore.

Respondent - workman has sought for reference of the dispute under Section 10 sub-section (1) clause (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. The charge memo discloses that the respondent - workman had remained unauthorisedly absent from

15.10.2003. In this regard, an enquiry was held. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the respondent has remained unauthorisedly absent from 06.10.2003. Based on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority, even after the submission of the explanation, has passed an order of dismissal, as against which, the respondent - workmen sought for reference before the Labour Court. 3

The Labour Court found that the enquiry was fair and proper. However, on the question of proportionality of the punishment, it held that the workman had given an explanation that he was admitted to Victoria Hospital for heart ailment and he had offered this explanation before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority even after receiving such explanation has not even considered that the dismissal order is disproportionate to the charge alleged against the respondent - workman and accordingly, the Labour Court invoking the provisions of Section 11-A of the I.D.Act has modified the punishment from the order of dismissal to one of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.

During the course of the enquiry before the Labour Court, workman had not disputed that he had remained absent, but he had given explanation for his unauthorised absence. The only grievance that was made by the Corporation was that, the workman should have given leave letter well in advance. When the workman's case is that, he suddenly suffered a heart disease, it cannot be expected to give leave letter in advance. The explanation, if it is genuine and acceptable, the 4 Disciplinary Authority should have considered the same. It is only in these circumstances, having held that the enquiry is fair and proper, having held that the misconduct is proved, however, insofar as quantum of punishment is concerned, the Labour Court on proper appreciation of the material and considering the mitigating circumstances has imposed proportionate punishment to the nature of charge alleged against the respondent. As such, it is not a case for interference under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition fails and same is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-DP*