IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12134 of 1999
Date of decision: 30.07.2009
The Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale
Stores Ltd. and others.
....Petitioners
versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hissar and
another.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. 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 under Section
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 full back 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 sanctioned to be treated as without pay.
Civil Writ Petition No.12134 of 1999 -2-
2. The learned counsel appearing for the management refers to
a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Senepathy Whiteley Ltd.
Versus Karadi Gowda and another-(1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 259,
that dealt with the power of the Labour Court under Section 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
Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and others-(2000) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 517, 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
under Section 11-A directed reinstatement the Hon’ble Supreme Court
characterized it as uncalled for sympathy and restored the decision of
dismissal.
3. 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
Civil Writ Petition No.12134 of 1999 -3-
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.
(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
30.07.2009
sanjeev