AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
The workman aggrieved by the award dt. 3.5.2010 in I.D.48/2007 of the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore substituting the punishment of removal from service to one of compulsory retirement with retiremental benefits without continuity of service and backwages, has presented this petition.
Indisputably the petitioner when employed by the respondent-employer was issued with two charge sheets Exs. M1 dt. 22.9.2006 alleging unauthorised absence for 123 days during the period from February. 2005 to October 2005 and Ex. M9 dt. 3.2.2007 for unauthorised absence for 105 days from October 2006 to December 2006, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation admitting the charges and requesting that a lenient view be taken. Respondent keeping in mind the unauthorised absence tantamounting to gross indiscipline removed the petitioner from service by order dt. 2.4.2007. That order when called in question in a petition u/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short ''ID Act'', the parties entered appearance, filed their respective pleadings and entered trial. Petitioner was examined as WW-1 and 10 documents marked as Exs. W1 to W10, while for the respondent-Management, one witness was examined as MW-1 and 5 documents marked as Exs. M1 to M5. The Labour Court by order dt. 1.12.2002 answered the preliminary issue regarding validity of the domestic enquiry in the affirmative holding the enquiry as fair and proper and there after, though extended an opportunity to lead further evidence on victimisation, the petitioner did not do so. The Labour Court having regard to the material on record, more appropriately the admission of the petitioner of unauthorised absence for the periods noticed supra, being gross indiscipline, nevertheless observed that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved and accordingly by award impugned modified the punishment to one of compulsory retirement with retiremental benefits without continuity of service or backwages.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Labour court are not shown to suffer from grave injustice to the petitioner calling for interference.
Petition devoid of merit is rejected.