Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs Piara Singh and Others

D.S. Tewatia and J. V. Gupta, JJ.—Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, Patiala a Government under taking, has impugned the award of the Labour Court, dated 3.6.1985, whereby Respondent No. 1, Piara Singh, a driver, was directed to be reinstated with continutity of service and full back wages.

The Services of the Respondent workman were terminated by the Petitioner Management for the reasons of his having absented with out permission from 19-2-1980 to 15-4-1980. The Labour Court, how ever, held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The Petitioner Management then led evidence to establish the misconduct of the workman. The Labour Court did not record a finding as to whether the workman had absented from duty without permission or not. It merely surmised that if the workman had absented from duty without permission, then he would not have been allowed to join duty on 15-4-1980 and that he would have been put under suspension.

The Labour Court appears to forget that since the Management had to hold an enquiry into the given misconduct, it had first to allow him to join duty.

As regards the Management not putting the workman under suspension, it may be observed that the charge levelled against the work man was not of any embezzelment etc, but of merely absenting from duty, and that any prudent Management would take work from the employee during the course of enquiry.

The Labour Court finally sought to invoke the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and observed that the punishment awarded by the Manage ment was too severe and harsh. No doubt, the Labour Court is vested with certain discretion u/s 11-A of the Act to examine the harashness of the punishment and propose a lesser punishment, but what the Labour Court has done in this case is that it has not only set aside the punishment of dismissal, but it has also awarded back wages, that would tantamount to rewarding the misconduct.

For the reasons aforementioned, we hold that the impugned award is clearly illegal and, therefore, the same is set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court with the direction that it would decide the matter afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 20.10.1986.

The writ petition is allowed in limine with no orders as to costs. However, it is directed that till the fresh award is made, the Respondent workman would continue to be be in service, but back wages shall not be paid to him, as directed by the impugned award.