Punjab National Bank v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The Management (Punjab National Bank) has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 22.11.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 21606 of 2011 filed by the appellant Management challenging the Award dated 11.4.2011 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (which was notified on 30.5.2011), ordering re-instatement of the services of the workman (respondent No.2 herein) along with all the consequential benefits, has been dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant Management and going through the impugned order as well as the Award passed by the LPA No. 230 of 2012 ( O&M ) -2- Labour Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

In this case, the respondent workman was removed from service on the basis of departmental enquiry on the charges of his having been absent from duty. He raised industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The question before the Labour Court was whether the workman was unauthorisedly absent from duty with effect from 14.5.2002 to 11.7.2002 and whether the punishment of his removal from service on the aforesaid charge was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties and giving detailed reasons, came to the conclusion that report of the Enquiry Officer as well as decision of the disciplinary authority awarding the punishment of removal from service was perverse. The Labour Court found that the Management had made interpolation in the Attendance Register and was guilty of changing letter `L' to `A'.

It was also noticed that in spite of the direction given to the Management to produce the original Attendance Register, the same was not produced. In view of these facts, an adverse inference to the effect that the workman was on duly sanctioned leave during the alleged period of absence was also drawn against the Management. The learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant Management in detail and perusing the record of the case, has affirmed the aforesaid finding/conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court, LPA No. 230 of 2012 ( O&M ) -3- while making the following observations : “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 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.” Learned counsel for the appellant Management vehemently argued that before coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have not properly appreciated the evidence and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. He argued that during the enquiry, adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the workman and after considering the entire matter, the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him, which was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and the order of removal of the workman from service was passed.

Learned counsel disputes the fact that the workman made any LPA No. 230 of 2012 ( O&M ) -4- request for granting leave or any leave was ever sanctioned. He further argued that before the Enquiry Officer, it was proved that the the workman remained absent for 59 days without permission, therefore, punishment of his removal from service was not harsh and the Labour Court has acted illegally, while ordering reinstatement of the workman with all consequential benefits. In our opinion, all the aforesaid contentions are not tenable, because the Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, reached to the aforesaid conclusion, which in our view is neither illegal nor perverse and the same is based upon a pure finding of fact. The said finding of fact has been approved by the learned Single Judge. This Court in the Letters Patent Appeal can neither go into the pure finding of facts nor can re-appraise the evidence for reaching to a different conclusion.

We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the awarding of punishment of removal from service was not justified, particularly keeping in view his long period of service. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE August 08, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH ) JUDGE