Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda & Ors.

Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate, for, Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, vide which the reference had been answered in favour of respondent/Workman (in short “the Workman”), holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof without back wages. As the inquiry held against the Workman had been found to be in accordance with law, the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short “the Act”) had awarded punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. Counsel for the petitioner/Management (in short “the Management”) contends that once a finding has been returned by the Labour Court that the ex-parte inquiry proceedings held against the Workman is in accordance with law, wherein it has been proved that the Workman had remained absent from duty w.e.f. 21.11.1987 to 24.12.1987, the Labour Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary power under Section 11-A of the C.W.P. No. 6034 of 2009. -2- Act, granting reinstatement to Workman in service with continuity thereof. He contends that the order of termination was dated 10.10.1988, whereas the demand notice was served on the Management on 05.10.1996. He, therefore, contends that there was an inordinate delay of eight years in putting forth his claim by the Workman. This itself was a good ground to reject the claim of the Workman, which had not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court, while passing the Award and had only mentioned that there is no limitation prescribed under the Act and, therefore, the claim of the Workman cannot be said to be maintainable. His contention is that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the Workman submits that the Workman was appointed as a Driver w.e.f. 07.02.1978 and his services were terminated on 10.10.1988. She contends that the Workman had unblemished record of service of more than ten and half years and it was for the first time that he had absented himself and for that he had submitted an explanation, wherein he had stated that his mother was sick and he was attending on her, but she ultimately died of tuberculosis. She contends that the absence had been duly explained by the Workman in his statement before the Labour Court and, therefore, merely for the absence of one month, the order of termination passed against the Workman had been found to be too harsh by the Labour Court and had accordingly intervened in the quantum of punishment and passed the impugned Award, which is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is an admitted position on behalf of Workman in his cross- examination that he was working and looking after the business of his in-laws C.W.P. No. 6034 of 2009. -3- in Delhi The notices which were sent to the Workman, were sent at the address, which he had given to the Management and he had admitted that the address on the letters relates to him. On consideration of these facts, the Court had come to a conclusion that the ex-parte inquiry proceedings held against the Workman is in accordance with law as the Workman had failed to join the same despite issuance of letter to this effect. The Labour Court had interfered on the quantum of punishment on the ground that the Workman had more than ten and half years of unblemished record of service with the Management and nothing has come on record suggesting that he had earlier also mis-conducted. Keeping in view the length of service and the period of absence of the Workman, the Labour Court had in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Act interfered in the quantum of punishment and had awarded him punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. The reasons assigned by the Labour Court for interfering in the quantum of punishment is justified, but the punishment which had been awarded by the Labour Court is not in consonance with the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. It is true that an inquiry was held against the Workman and he was found guilty, and the inquiry proceedings were upheld by the Labour Court. It is also true that the period of absence of the Workman from duty was from 21.11.1987 to 24.12.1987. Nothing has come on record suggesting that earlier there was any mis-conduct committed by the Workman. No reasons whatsoever had been given by the Workman for not putting forth his demand earlier to date, i.e., 05.10.1996. The date of his termination was

10.10.1988 and, therefore, he had approached the Management with the demand after a delay of eight years. The benefit of this unexplained delay cannot be granted to the Workman especially when he has C.W.P. No. 6034 of 2009. -4- admitted in his cross-examination that during this period and even after that he was looking after the business of his in-laws at Delhi. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice would be duly served by modifying the Award of the Labour Court to the extent that the Workman would not be entitled to continuity of service and his appointment will be treated as a fresh appointment from the date of the Award, passed by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, which has been impugned herein. The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 03, 2010. sjks.