G.Nagaiah vs Industiral Tribunal Cumlab. Court Anr

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari and quashing the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, dt.18.09.2000 in I.D.No.159 of 1996 published on 10.01.2001.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent Corporation as Cleaner on 02.01.1981 and was promoted as Painter in 1984. As he was not keeping good health during the month of July, 1986 and also due to the fact that his sister died during that period, the petitioner could not attend to duties and the reasons for his absence and sick certificate were communicated to the 2nd respondent.

However, the 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet dt.06.08.1986 alleging that the petitioner did not attend to duties during the period from 06.07.1986 to 06.08.1986 and also that in the earlier year he remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 90 days. After conducting departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service and thereafter, after exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent confirmed the punishment of removal from service and thereafter the present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, submits that the unauthorised absence by the petitioner during the relevant period was only 30 days and in the earlier year it was 90 days. He submitted that the petitioner submitted reasons and also sick certificate for the period from 06.07.1986 to 06.08.1986, but the same were not considered by any of the authorities below. He submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal after a long delay of 9 years. He submitted that due to poverty and unemployment, the petitioner could not approach the Court immediately and therefore, there was a delay of 9 years. He submitted that the punishment awarded to him was disproportionate to the minor default committed by him and therefore, he should be reinstated into service with all attendant benefits.

In support of his contention that the delay of 9 years before approaching the Tribunal can be condoned as there was no limitation period prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to approach the Tribunal, he placed reliance upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.G.Shiva Shanker Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. 2014(4) ALD 481. As regards disproportionality of punishment and whether the Tribunal or the High Court can interfere with the punishment, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others (2009) 15 SCC 620 : AIR 2010 SC 75. As regards the prayer for setting aside the punishment order and awarding of the attendant benefits, he placed reliance upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.6193 of 2007 dt.17.01.2017. Copies of these orders are also filed before this Court.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri A. Ravi Babu, on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has not given any reason

for his absence for the period stated in the charge sheet and has also not replied, nor attended to any of the notices issued by the Corporation. He submitted that the petitioner, after his termination, has also slept over more than 10 years before approaching the Industrial Tribunal. He submitted that after taking note of the conduct of the petitioner in not cooperating with the Corporation, the Tribunal had rightly confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, according to him, the petitioner is not entitled to any reinstatement of service or back wages and attendant benefits, if any.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the charges against the petitioner are that he was absent for a period of 90 days in the year 1985 and for another period of 30 days in 1986. Due to non-cooperation or non-compliance of the petitioner to the notices issued by the Corporation, the Corporation was but constrained to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner had approached the Industrial Tribunal after a long period of 9 years and this is one of the reasons for dismissal of the petition by the Labour Court.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.G.Shiva Shanker Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. (1 supra) has held that as there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in approaching the Labour Court and if the petitioner satisfies and explains the reasons for approaching the Tribunal belatedly, the same can be condoned and particularly if the petitioner was to succeed on merits. This Court finds that the petitioner herein had explained that due to poverty and unemployment, he could not approach the Tribunal immediately after the termination order. Further, the charges are only about unauthorised absence of 30 days and 90 days only and not grave enough for removing him from service. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others (2 supra), where the punishment of removal is grossly disproportionate to the proved charge of unauthorised absence for more than 6 months in that case, the High Court can set aside or modify the punishment. This Writ Petition was filed in the year 2003 and after a period of more than 18 years, remanding the matter back to the appropriate authority now for reconsideration on the question of punishment may not be proper. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt.17.01.2017 in W.P.No.6193 of 2007, in similar circumstances has set aside the termination order and directed the Corporation to notionally reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages. Therefore, this Court also sets aside the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner herein and grants notional reinstatement of the petitioner into service, however without back wages.

In the Writ Petition filed in 2003, the age of the petitioner is stated to be 39 years, whereas in the I.D. filed in 1996, his age is stated to be 40 years. So it is not clear as to whether the petitioner would be still in service even if he is reinstated.

Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner be treated as entitled to continuity of service from the date of his removal till the date of his retirement only for attendant benefits but without back wages.

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.