HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4385 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.08.2011 **** Yash Pal . . . . Petitioner VS. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Gurgaon . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was employed as Technician Grade Level-III by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on 10.09.1987. The petitioner, however, started absenting from duty which led to issuance of a charge-sheet and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner gave his reply which was found unsatisfactory and one Mr. KK Arora was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence by fixing different dates on 29.03.1999, 12.04.1999, 05.05.1999, 19.05.1999, 04.06.1999, 14.06.1999 & 16.07.1999. The petitioner did receive intimation of the enquiry proceedings but did not attend the same. In these circumstances, the enquiry officer submitted an ex parte report holding the charges against the petitioner proved. Based upon that enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 10.11.1999. CWP No.4385 of 2011.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioner raised an industrial dispute in which Issue No.1, namely, “Whether the enquiry conducted by the mgt, was unfair and proper” was treated as the first/preliminary issue. The Labour Court vide its order dated 19.01.2009 (Annexure P5) came to the conclusion that the enquiry was held in a fair and just manner and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. (3). Consequent upon the findings on Issue No.1, the other issues were also decided against the petitioner and the reference stands answered against him vide the impugned award dated 31.08.2010. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record. (5). It may be seen that besides the petitioner has been found to have been given full opportunity to participate in the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court has also gone into the question of quantum of sentence in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘the Act’). The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a habitual absentee who remained absent from duty on several occasions during the years 1995-96; 1996-97, 1998, respectively. (6). In these circumstances, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service cannot be held to be excessive, CWP No.4385 of 2011.doc - 3 – warranting the interference of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act. (7). For the reasons afore-stated, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Dasti. 01.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge