Hem Pant vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 162 (MS) of 2006 was appointed in H.M.T. Watch Factory, Ranibagh, Nainital on 25.10.1985 and he joined the services on 5.11.1985. Petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings, as he remained absent without leave on several occasions between 1992 and 1994. The period of days when the petitioner remained absent are as follows:-- As stated in Writ Petition filed by the General Manager, H.M.T. Watch Factory i.e. Writ Petition No. 1329 (MS) of 2005, the fact that the petitioner remained absent during the aforesaid period has not been denied by the workman. He faced disciplinary proceedings and subsequently his services were terminated vide order dated 24.06.1995, passed by the General Manager. The petitioner/workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Haldwani, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 27 of 1997. The Labour Court, Haldwani after hearing both the parties and dealing with the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/workman had remained absent during the period when he has been alleged. However, the Labour Court, on the question of punishment, came to the conclusion that the punishment of termination from service is disproportionate to the conduct and, thereafter, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner/workman in service with continuity from the date of termination, though without back-wages.

This Award has also been challenged by the petitioner/workman in Writ Petition No. 162 (MS) of 2005, claiming that under the circumstances, he ought to have been reinstated with full back-wages and the Award of the Labour Court is bad to that extent. This Award has been challenged both by the workman as well as the employer, respectively.

Admittedly, in this case, the workman remained absent between 1.4.1992 to 28.2.1994. Barring a few months in the aforesaid period of almost two years, the workman remained absent without permission. Hardly, there is a single month in which he did not remain absent. All these unauthorized absence of the workman which are admitted, call for a maximum punishment of termination of service. Therefore, the contention that the Labour Court has taken a harsh view in granting the Award cannot be accepted.

The ground taken by the Labour Court in reinstating the workman in service is that there were other employees who remained absent for a period more than the workman/petitioner but no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against them and the only the workman has been singled out. This cannot be a ground for interference by the Labour Court, as two wrongs do not make a right. Therefore, this ground is totally uncalled for in the present matter.

The learned counsel for the workman Mr. B.D. Pande has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, . The facts of the present case are entirely different. Therefore, this case law has no application in the present matter.

It is, however, added that in the present case, it is not just a question of one act but it is a recurring act and omission where the workman continuously remained absent for a period of two years on various occasions, a finding which has been recorded in the disciplinary proceedings and has been accepted by the Labour Court.

Under these circumstances, the award of Labour Court dated 25.6.2005, passed in Adjudication Case No. 27 of 1997, regarding reinstatement of workman in service is set aside. The Writ Petition No. 1329 (MS) of 2005 is allowed. The Writ Petition No. 162 (MS) of 2006, filed by the workman has no force. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that any amount already paid as wages to the workman shall not be recovered from the workman, merely as the Award of the Labour Court has been set aside.