Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner-Corporation has approached this Court assailing the award dated 30.09.1992 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, vide which respondent No. 2-workman has been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages w.e.f. 27.09.1988. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-workman was working as a Driver with the petitioner-Pepsu Road Transport Corporation when he absented from duty w.e.f. 06.07.1981. He continued to remain absent till 31.12.1981 when he reported back for duty. In the meanwhile, for the absence from duty, notice dated 20.07.1981 was sent at his home address under registered acknowledgment due cover directing him to report for duty within three days from the receipt of the same, failing which departmental proceedings will be initiated against him. The said letter was duly received by the respondent-workman, but he did not report for duty and, therefore, he was charge-sheeted regarding willful absence from duty vide memo dated 13.08.1981. This charge-sheet was sent to his home address under the registered acknowledgment due cover, which was received by him on 17.08.1981. Despite receipt of the charge-sheet, respondent-workman preferred to continue absent from duty nor he filed any reply to the charge-sheet.

Departmental enquiry was ordered against him vide order dated 17.09.1981 by appointing Shri Ravinder Nath, Traffic Manager, PRTC, Sangrur as the Enquiry Officer. Respondent-workman appeared before the Depot Incharge at Sangrur on 31.12.1981 and requested for taking a lenient view. On his reporting back, he was put back on duty w.e.f. 01.01.1982 subject to the outcome of the enquiry pending against him. After regular departmental enquiry was held against him, in which the workman participated, enquiry report dated 26.02.1982 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Finding went against the workman as all the charges levelled against him were proved.

The punishing authority issued a show cause notice dated 05.05.1982 as to why his services be not terminated because of his absence from duty. He was called upon to file reply and was also directed to appear before the punishing authority for a personal hearing if he so wanted on 11.03.1982. No reply was submitted by the workman to the show cause notice nor he did prefer to appear before the punishing authority. As a matter of fact, thereafter also respondent-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 23.04.1982. Another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the workman on 18.05.1982 vide letter dated 10.05.1982, but the said chance was also not availed of by him. Keeping in view this conduct of the petitioner, his earlier service record and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, punishing authority proceeded to terminate the services of the workman with immediate effect vide order dated 31.05.1982 (Annexure P-2).

Counsel contends that the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the subsequent conduct of the respondent-workman has been taken into consideration for terminating him from service for which he was not given an opportunity to defend himself, is not sustainable as the mentioning of the subsequent absence from duty w.e.f. 23.04.1982 is only a fact recorded and the same has not influenced the decision of the punishing authority in any manner while passing the order of termination. The findings, thus, recorded by the Labour Court, which are based on assumptions, cannot be said to be in consonance with law.

It has further been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the workman in pursuance to the award passed by the Labour Court dated 30.09.1992 was taken back in service on 17.05.1993. He, however, again absented from duty from 13.12.1995. A departmental enquiry was held against him for this absence from duty, which resulted in his termination from service on 30.08.1996. This order of termination has not been challenged by the respondent-workman and has attained finality.

None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-workman.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.

Perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court would show that the basis for setting-aside the order of termination of the respondent-workman is the mentioning of the fact that the workman had remained absent from duty w.e.f. 23.04.1982 till the date of his termination, for which no notice was given to him to defend himself. Perusal of the order of termination dated 31.05.1982 (Annexure P-2) attached along with the writ petition would show that except for mentioning of a fact about the absence from duty of the respondent-workman in the said order, no effect thereof could be found to have on the decision taken by the punishing authority for terminating the services of the workman. A regular enquiry was held against the workman, in which he has been found guilty. Proper procedure, as provided under the Punishment and Appeal Rules, has been followed by the Management and despite giving him various opportunities of personal hearing and for filing reply to the show cause notice, the same has not been availed of by the workman. The finding as recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report, which has been made the basis for coming to a conclusion with regard to the absence from duty of the respondent-workman by the punishing authority, cannot be faulted with merely because a mention of the fact of subsequent absence from duty has been recorded in the order. The conclusion, thus, drawn by the Labour Court finding fault with the order of termination of the workman cannot sustain.

It would not be out of way to mention here that in pursuance to the award, respondent-workman was taken back in service on 17.05.1993. Thereafter he has again absented from duty w.e.f. 13.12.1995 for which departmental action has been taken resulting in termination of the respondent from service on 30.08.1996, which order has attained finality as he has not challenged the same (stated by the counsel for the petitioner). This explains the absence of the counsel for the respondent in court.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Award dated 30.09.1992 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala is hereby set-aside. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.