mrs sermon COMING ON FOR 1>RL.H.sAR::~«:, :'-«em-_'e*
GROUP. THIS BAY. THE cows'? MA{)E'1'HE Fo1,1,0$as'£:~2ad
'Transport Corporation remained absent fretrpduty §;V.e.f. ',
20.5.2003
to 31.10.2003 {£%i:§: o1;: pV1′;i01{_VVApver1;’I:1§issi0n er
sanction of ieave, evtkdivsciplinary
proceeding by issuing (it. 3.10.2003,
followed by Vvoffieer who after
extending’ of hearing submitted
a The disciplinary
autI10i*it3}04’_ on’: assessment of the facts
evidence on recordg held the
prox:;e'<i :21;f}_e1'.%1ax/'ir1g regard is the past record 0f
0 the petitioner was visited with minor
unautherised abseneeg eoupled with the
fast t1":st"i§1ere was no justifiable defence for absence
~d.u_e ii)'. medical treatment, passed the order dt.
'giE§.&:Q,2€IO5 dismissing the peiitisner frem service,
égiiie
2':
J
2. That order was (tailed in
initiating conciliation proceedings under the iridtizstrigii ”
Disputes Act, 1947, for short’A7I’1}«
Conciliation Officer returned a i’a_i1:ure re}§ort,’v
which the State Got7ernrherit’;..e»by .Vor_C.1er._;h20O8″‘
referred for adjudication, fitiispute, to the
Labour Court, gegistered as
Ref.No.2Si/3QC)r3.»._’ Vtelaim statement
which statement of the
resp0vr:.r5i¢6:riute~e§ori–i3;:’_ Qorrporation, arraigned as
seeorid part§}t”‘vi;i:-..thefipro’eeeding. In the premise of the
p1eadihgE:’_’_’of the Labour Court framed an
adriitiiohai over the validity of the domestic
.ji5orties having let in evidence, both oral and
Labour court by order (it. 18312009
arié;we_red. the additional issue in the affirrriative, holding
the wfijomestie eriquiry as fair and proper.
‘i’.he.reafterwards, the petitioner was permitted to addtiee
__evideriee ori vietirriieatiori, wheriee, he wag further
exemiiieé WW~i whiie the respoziderii,»Cerporatior:
iei
examined one Lokesh Shetty as MXVQ and rfizzrked
three documents as EX.M-27 to M30.
3. The Labour Court: haxring»vregar§1.Vre’ V’
on record and evidence both
declined to accept the tire .petiri0r1er””the{t his”?
absence from service.»«jrlrirrgflihel’reieyfarfi was due
to 111 health. Labour””ee’:_:rr’ fact that the
petitioner lreriishment in the
past e’i.rC.u’mstanees so as to
interfere” of dismissal and
aee0r{i.:r1’g’1yV 108962009 rejected the
refereriee” = petition.
iearrred Counsel for the petitioner advances
. the ik:.i.1e.§x}’::itg’. eontentions:
the Labour Ceurt rejected the xerex copies
ejfvthe medieai certificates er: a strange 1″ees0r1ir1g by
“«-rtaliing upen the petitioner to gsreduee the
‘Aereeeriptiener Aeeeixding is the Eearned eeurrsei ihe
erigirraie ef the medéeai eeriifieares were harrdecé ever
aiergg witéé the Eeiter seeking leave of absence eshieh
§;.2%i;~
D ‘ -‘~_’V’. ”
the authority failed to Consider. It ‘ijéw’f$I,}”‘*JZ}€f:_.V
contended that when a rmedieat certificate is
there was no reason for the Labour. eetirt the ‘d–i.:3he’Ii.efv’_€’
that Certificate. ._ .V
b) It is next eentendedthat the petit;ior1e_’:f had’ Iezweé ‘
to his Credit and that ti1e_ ‘£ee.ve riot
eensidered by the authority a h _ b
C) It is lastly’ :_eé:5r1ter_;t:1e:1VA th§1t.vtAt–he Labozjr Court
failed to exercise iteVext1′::~01:d;ina;ry~–j;u.rie;x;ii<:tion Lmder
Section 11uA«o_fthe-'Aet; V V' "
5. _.t’he”‘4’V_L’earr:ed counsel for the
resp0nd–er_1t~~Cerp§>rati_en_Vtcert-tenets that there being no
diSp1Jti€ over fjeti-t_i40ne1*fS”‘ab:3’ence from duty, the burden
was on the”pvetitirfixnterttt prove that there was sufficient
justification Vihxfwthe absence. Learned Counsel refutes
the eetrttenvtion that the petitioner had leave to his credit
.5;ii§1. leave application enclosing medical
eert:fic.:’$ate:;”‘ for eeneiderationt According to the learned
A.CQtlI1Sf€i.. there is net 3 titre ef evidence placed befere the
‘ ”’._VE::s;;’:uiry Officer or before the L:’:1b{}i}I Court in support of
the $316: eenterztiens.
32%
6
6. Learned counsel points out to the explanation
to articles of charge to contend that there
assertion ever leave to his credit nor subrni’s~sVicn_i’c.«f leave ‘
applications’ It is next contendedthat lpetiticner
having remained absent for a }5e_1’ied of ~d’ays”acnd,
the past record of serw§ice;. adniittedly,lidlilsclosedll
unauthorised absen’e’e_ cndll..’geca.;siensVin” the past
leading to imposition cf the burden
was hea\fily§,.u’nci3c establish by placing
relevant ls.nb–stantia1 legal evidence
that there nor lack of interest in
dischlargle.l_ Of lastly contended that any
interference ‘ vyfi-thl’-._ tlie punishment of dismissal
” ‘~ tz»§n:’tan1etI,ents is ‘rnisplaced sympathy and benevolence.
it heard the learned counsel fer the
partie.g;.’,’pe’rused the pleadings and examined the award
there is no dispute that the petitioner
‘llrernained nnautherisedljg absent; from 26.5.2093 tn
, i€}§2GG.”?:. ‘there is alse ne dispute that, the petitiener
eiaizned as have sni’ie:*ed {rent ;’anneiiee {rein iZ8.5’2SGfji
Esta
2
? V’
to 26.6.2003 and was treated by e w*i11ag’e:.~«qI4§1ej1_ttijlltid
that on 28.6.2003 he suffered fFOHI,’.Vt_}’TphOiti:”
7.8.2003 whence he took t1~eatfheht’3et”._Pri1fieti*j{fietetttix
Centre (PHC), Sharavanabelagels ” . end tttvffttfthrafv V’
8.8.2003 to 3.10.2003 suf;fe:1e”(1V–tfr0r.:t.1 baVC’1£;2ic:heVvtef xttvhiehh
he took treatment at ‘J-u’tteneihs_e111i. flftvis ftirther net
in dispute that the VpetitioberqflV1;:re::h;eAed’a xerox copy of
the certificate» the Medical
Officer, X€I’OX Copy of the
certificate the Medical Officer,
tit is not in dispute that
when unauthorisedly absent en
11.’eeeasi€j:2,s’ér’1 the past was visited with minor
Apimis}ime:.tts. H ttttt H
t defence of the petitioner that he was
tre;étte€Vi.AVb.y”.Va quack fer jaundice between 265.2003 arid
is not established. The further defence that
“teas under treatment fer typhesiei fer the period from
t V’ “”2§.6e2OQ3 ts ?.8,2GCi3 as certified by the deeter at PRC,
Sha:”ev:a::12:heEagele in the >«:e:’e:”rier”tlet’vto the said doctors who
treated secure the medical records
maintainer} tl-:et:_ai(“i”ltlPHC over the alleged treatment.
I1-iW_’l3;n§,z.e_eansidelreel–‘opinion, petitioner having failed to
V epeeial knowledge that was known to him in
alleged treatment by a quack and at the
two ~~l?l’i’:11ary Health Centres, mere pmduetion of xerox
.ee’:pies of certificates by themselves and nothing more
jeaerzot eesnstittzte subzstazetial legal evidenee. No
€X{?€§§,l€3l'”: titan he {alien 32:; the E”€;€iS§(}§}$, fi:1di:3g;>;e and
tee?
‘E?
conclusione arrived at by the Labour Court declining to
accept the copies of medical certificates as”
evidenciairy value.
9. In the circumstances;Qwtlxie ‘_rea.39ri:’:iyg~Vc’f’«’
Labour court that failure :0 prririiice the_pre»s:%ri1a’;ticlriS.VV
and bills in order to establ’ial1i.that”tliev had’
taken treatment fo1\r\\’J%/un«Clice,e-» lj,%ff)I1Qid a’ricl”‘bacl<:ache
cannot be characterised Va::-"."1§c§rv.e:.rSe';'V~._/Thai: contention
must necessai'E'ly1'fail:;._
¢.:3;U',l:1tE?171:tlvZ}_lCl fliarpetitioner had leave to his
credilig and applications with original
medical l'i«ce1*tifl'caijes" not supported by relevant
Irgaiéeriai _ar1<l1'*th.€.._Lab0ur court: rightly, declined 1:0
' .VaceeptV4fhar blea.
r.§;’l’.~.A«:”‘l”Ahe coriteritiicn that the Labour court did not
..eis:_erc:se its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section ll~
l the Act, E am afraid is unacceptable. Section ll~A
“lappliee Gray wheel the Labcur caaré is eariaiiecl that the
crfier ef rlliarrriseal waa act. justifieér ac re iE3′{€E”‘f€1″€
lea
IO ,
with the quantum of punishment imposed and
lesser punishment in lieu of die:hissa§I,v~,2t1s””
Circumstances may require. -‘thee'”fétetVs».jj.af}d
circumstances of the case, the Lahefif cettztjt-reeo1*eEe_d’*a
specific finding that the”tptnj1ishfneVnt. _0i’..Veti§s1:1is5:aI iee’
Commensurate with _ the g1f__e{:\;»ity’VV_._t)f Ihieconciiuct held
proved and therefore “Veé:e,ft1L11j§g?’–.,in not exercising
extraordinary Ji:t:1fisdietit)n::uhd.e’r_Set:tit5:1” .1 LA of the Act.
Court in the ease of
Divistftonalxx .NWKRTC, Bagalkot -V-
Ragha’\feri’drain_AV ‘–j.’i*s’I:;idL1′:1’ai?a Kattii, followed the
observatioh the Siufireme Court in the caee of M/s
Cempai1jVLtmited —v- Their Workmen and
»v44Vtm.>:1″§};eing that unauthorised absence is grave
nit_s§e0ndi1e:t_.’#and grave Violation of discipline, greatly
je0pa;fe1i:3e the functioning of the estabiiehmentt more
gtipijziopriatety all employees of a Road Trahspert
§:OI’}3Q1’€:§iOfl% 1’€{:’I€tiI1i§1g absent. having serious
t m: 2e<:e: iiifixié 43%:
11
repercussions on functioning of the Corpo_}éitio;3._ __”a–Lei1__d _
hindering of service to public for which t’hev’Corporaiions”‘
have been brought into exieéjengre ..-‘unde’:.* “‘:,heIj”e~–Re:a_d
‘1’ ranspori Corporations Ari: ‘L95 vigeaiimexiii 1
of such dereliction of eiinount of
seriousness. Division Bench
further followed the Apex Court in
thi’? 93353 “:~KE::t.f’Qactions Ltd. –~v-
A.UnnikfeiehT;ia:I.’iV.’:é2n(j’–{‘§fheif3 ‘eie’pfecati11g the judicial
tendeneiee:i;)_ reliefs by mere basing
on generosity and private
benevolence.
In ‘ihi”Transport Corporation -«V-= Sardar
V Court having regard to the abeenee
iij¢’::»: observed that the Conduct of remaining
absent’«:_Wit.houi. obtaining leave in advance is nothing
AAVbiit_ir1;esponsib1e in extreme and can hardly be justified.
in addition it was observed that ii is the burden of the
i 3 .x’2iE¥i 3%; so 229 §;,?%é§:.K
mac: E: ii}
‘ Aiii zsieé Si? am:
1?
employee who eiaims that therie”‘x»i*as rio ggiegiéigeriee er ‘
iaek of interest to establish it it ;3V1V>2;{C”iY1~g
material.
14. In the faeti;:5afi– in the
absence of relevant the defence
of the petitj.ei’ier_~.of treatment, it
cannot V petitioner exhibited
in discharging duties.
Havirig reigarri: iaid down by the Apex
Court Division Bench of this Court
irij’~the_x’d.eeisibi1S,.__.I10tiee<:1 supra, the award impugned
' tedeews note Cali for interference in exercise of extraordinary
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
i
. 'Nrit petition devoid ef merit is rejected.
3&3!/ii
§ i ieeer