Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and Others vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal and Another

K. Kannan, J.—The management challenges the award of the Labour Court, who while answering the reference whether the termination of services of the workman was justified or not, held invoking the power u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act that prolonged absence without sanctioned leave was not serious enough to inflict a serious punishment of removal from service. He directed reinstatement with fullback wages with continuity and with all other consequential service benefits except for stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect and the periods of leave without sanction to be treated as without pay.

The learned Counsel appearing for the management refers to a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Senapathy Whitely Ltd. Vs. Karadi Gowda and Another, , that dealt with the power of the Labour Court u/s 11-A where a probationer workman charged of unauthorised absence for a long period of 52 days, but not participating in the domestic enquiry was found justified for removal from service and interference made by the Labour Court in the mode of punishment was found fault with by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha Etc., , the case was one of charge of misappropriation of goods by the workman for which the disciplinary authority had ordered termination from service. While the Labour Court in exercise of powers u/s 11-A directed reinstatement the Hon''ble Supreme Court characterized it as uncalled for sympathy and restored the decision of dismissal.

These two decisions, in my view, shall not apply to a case such as what obtains before me, where the Labour Court had considered the fact that the workman had an unblemished service of 11 years and he was working on fixed wages of Rs. 900/- per month. His absence from duty was on the alleged ground that his daughter was unwell and he had to attend to her. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that he had applied for leave and the head office had not communicated him one way or the other about his plea for sanction of leave without pay. The consideration of the Labour Court to award a lesser punishment had been made on all relevant parameters and the award of the Labour Court, in my view, does not suffer from any vice for interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.