M.H. Ahamed Hussain vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—The writ petitioner is the appellant and he raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 71 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Presiding Officer cum II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. The said Industrial Dispute, after hard contest, came to be dismissed on 03.04.2003. The writ petitioner made a challenge to the said award by filing W.P. No. 36164 of 2003 and it was also dismissed on 07.04.2013 and being aggrieved, he has filed this writ appeal.

The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition have been narrated in detail in the impugned order passed in the writ petition and therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate the same once again here and it is suffice to state the facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal.

The appellant herein was proceeded on the ground that he has unauthorisedly absented himself and the details of which are as follows:

1997 - whole year absent

1998 - whole year absent

1999 - 239 days absent

2000 - January 31 days (ESI)

2000 - February 29 days absent.

A domestic enquiry was conducted and it has been proved beyond probabilities that the appellant herein, without any justifiable/reasonable cause, has absented himself so long and therefore, the order was passed dismissing him from service. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has raised the Industrial Dispute. During the course of enquiry in the Industrial Dispute, on behalf of both the appellant and the respondents, no witnesses were examined and on the side of the appellant, Exs. A1 to A22 were marked and on the side of the respondents, Exs. B1 to B16 were marked. The Labour Court, on a proper consideration of oral and documentary evidence, in paragraphs 17 to 20 has recorded the findings that the appellant herein, without any justifiable cause and in spite of the order passed by this Court, went on leave and subsequently absented himself. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

The challenge made by the appellant herein with regard to the dismissal of I.D. No. 71 of 2001 in W.P. No. 36164 of 2003 has also ended in dismissal and the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, after taking into consideration the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, has recorded a categorical finding that the absenteeism by the appellant herein was habitual and gross discipline and thereby recorded the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be held to be harsh or disproportionate.

This Court has bestowed its attention to the entire materials placed before it in the form of typed set and as already pointed out, the appellant, in 1997 and 1998, absented himself for the whole years and in the year 1999, he absented for 239 days and in the year 2000, he absented himself for the entire two months of January and February. The Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have recorded the finding that the appellant has deliberately absented himself and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be stated to be disproportionate to the delinquency of the appellant herein. It is settled position that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, cannot be expected to act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the findings recorded by the Labour Court, which were also confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 36164 of 2003. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ appeal and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 07.04.2014 passed in W.P. No. 36164 of 2003. No costs.