AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—By filing this interlocutory application, it is stated that the concerned workman, respondent No. 2 has died during the pendency of this writ application on 20.11.2004 leaving behind his widow, namely, Mrs. Khurshida Begum as his legal heir.
In this view of the matter I.A. No. 2926 of 2004 is allowed and the name of Mrs. Khurshida Begum be substituted in place of the deceased respondent No. 2 i.e. the concerned workman, namely, Md. Mohuiuddin.
Writ Petition (L) No. 3151 of 2001
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The writ petitioner employer M/s Tata Yodogawa Ltd. has filed this writ petition challenging the Award dated 1.2.2001 pronounced on 30.4.2001 by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in Reference Case No. 02 of 1993, whereby he set aside the termination of service of the concerned workman and directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages and consequential benefits except payment of back wages for the period from 1.6.1988 to 31.5.1990, by holding that the punishment awarded to the concerned workman was disproportionate to the charge.
The charge against the concerned workman was that he had taken 4 days casual leave from 29.2.1988 to 3.3.1988 and after some days the management received another application dated 5.3.1988 from the concerned workman to the effect that he was sick and was under going medical treatment, as such, he was unable to attend his duty till recovery.
According to the management the workman did not send any medical certificate along with his application for extension of leave and he did also not mention the probable period of absent.
Whereas according to the concerned workman, he took leave from 29.2.1988 to 3.3.1988 and thereafter he sent an application on 5.3.1988 for extension of leave on the ground of sickness. He also sent other applications on 28.3.1988, 22.4.1988, 18.5.1988 and 10.6.1988 all under certificate of posting, but the management illegally terminated his service with effect from 1.6.1988 without considering the prayer for extension of leave.
The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the respondent No. 2 i.e. the concerned workman was not fair and proper, since it was decided ex-parte in absence of the concerned workman.
As it appears that the Labour Court on consideration of evidence and materials on record came to the finding that from perusal of the exhibits produced by both the sides, it was clear that the concerned workman was on casual leave from 29.2.1988 to 3.3.1988 and thereafter he applied for extension of leave on the ground of sickness till recovery, but as per the Standing Orders of the Company, he did not send any medical certificate along with the application for extension of leave and, as such, the only fault on the part of the concerned workman was that he did not send any medical certificate along with the leave application addressed to the management.
The Labour Court on consideration of facts and materials came to the conclusion that the punishment of discharge from service was highly disproportionate to the charge leveled against the concerned workman. Accordingly, by the impugned Award he held that the punishment of discharge of the concerned workman from his service was not justified, since it was highly disproportionate to the charge and, as such, after setting aside the order of discharge, he directed the management to reinstate the concerned workman with full back wages and consequential benefits, but without any back wages for the period from 1.6.1988 to 31.5.1990.
On consideration of facts and materials already discussed above, I am also of the view that the order of discharge of the petitioner from service on the said charge is not justified, but now the position has changed, since the concerned workman has died during the pendency of this writ application, therefore, now the question of his reinstatement in service does not arise.
So far as the Award of full back wages is concerned, it appears that the Labour Court has not given any finding on the point that during the period of out of service of the concerned workman, he was employed any where or not. Therefore, in my view, the Award of full back wages to the concerned workman is not proper and the same is required to be modified. Accordingly, without interfering the finding arrived at by the Labour Court, the Award is modified to the extent that the concerned workman shall be paid 50% of the full back wages with consequential benefits in place of full back wages and consequential benefits as awarded by the Labour Court to the widow of the deceased within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the order.
With this modification in Award given by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in Reference Case No. 02 of 1993, this writ petition is dismissed.
There will not order as to the costs.