Punjab National Bank v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Anr.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.-

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-bank is aggrieved by the Award dated

30.5.2011 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, setting-aside the order whereby the 2nd respondent who was working as a Peon in the petitioner-bank, was removed from service. While invoking its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal has assigned more than five self-speaking and fully justified reasons, namely, (i) the workman did apply for leave w.e.f. 14.5.2002 to 11.7.2002 before proceeding on leave; (ii) the attendance register was tampered with and the word 'L' was converted into 'A' in order to show the workman absent from duty; (iii) CWP No.21606 of 2011 [2] despite an order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the Tribunal to produce the documents within 10 working days, the original record was not produced; (iv) the petitioner-management also failed to prove as to whether 'L' is written in the attendance register before or after sanctioning of the leave as the original record was not produced despite directions; (v) no record regarding cancellation of the leave, as may be done in exigency of work, was produced; (vi) the enquiry was held in a biased manner and (vii) the management was guilty of altering with the original record.

Consequently, the order of removal from service was set-aside with a clarificatory direction that the workman was and shall be considered on leave for the entire period of absence and shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The aggrieved management has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, the tribunal acted within the well known para-meters while drawing adverse inference against the petitioner- bank for not producing the original records of leave application or attendance register etc. It does appear that some superior officer of the Bank was biased against the workman as earlier also two annual increments with cumulative effect were stopped merely remaining absent from duty for three different days. There were no allegations against the workman like embezzlement, mis-appropriation, insubordination and/or committing a mis-conduct involving moral turpitude.

The punishment of removal from CWP No.21606 of 2011 [3] service for his presumed absence from duty for 59 days was too harsh and has rightly been interfered with by the Tribunal. Suffice to observe that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permits the Tribunal- cum-Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment wherever it finds that the order of discharge or dismissal from service was not justified. In the instant case, the Tribunal has formed such an opinion for more than one valid reasons. No case to interfere with the impugned Award by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. November 22, 2011 Mohinder (SURYA KANT) JUDGE