HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2714 of 2004 Date: October 20, 2010 Between: The General Manager, The Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Mandamarri, Adilabad District, Rep. by B. Sambi Reddy. … Petitioner And 1. Bodakunta Lingaiah & 2 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2714 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is taken up out of turn for hearing as the first respondent, being a senior citizen, filed a petition for the said purpose. 2. By way of this writ petition, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited assails the award dated 30.7.2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad in L.C.I.D. No.270 of 2001. By the said award the Labour Court directed the petitioner company to reinstate the first respondent in service on or before 01st September 2002 and if he put in minimum muster rolls for three consecutive years, the petitioner company was directed to take into account the entire service rendered by him from 1976 for the purpose of calculating his terminal benefits. 3. The first respondent approached the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2001 passed by the petitioner company dismissing him from service. The reason for such dismissal was the alleged habitual absence of the first respondent from duty without sufficient cause. After following the due procedure, the charge levelled against the first respondent was held proved. Relevant to note, during the inquiry the petitioner company afforded the first respondent a further opportunity under letter dated 21.01.2001 to improve his performance.. This opportunity was given basing on the first respondent’s representation dated 17.01.2001 to the effect that he would put in 22 musters every month. In spite of the same, he put in only 7 musters in February 2001 and none during March and April 2001. Thereupon, the order dated 27.5.2001 dismissing him from service ensued. 4. The award under challenge reflects complete lack of application of mind by the Labour Court. Except for extracting the pleadings and contentions of the parties the Labour Court did not think it fit to record reasons for granting relief. There is no explanation whatsoever in the award as to why the Labour Court found the punishment imposed upon the first respondent disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and held proved against him. 5. In Regional Manager, UPSRTC vs. Hoti Lal[1], the Supreme Court observed that the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges as the scope for interference on this ground is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. 6. Viewed thus the cryptic finding of the Labour Court that the punishment was disproportionate without further ado falls far short of the expected norm. 7. Relevant to note, in spite of this Court not granting any stay of the award, the first respondent did not choose to take steps for its execution. In the meanwhile he attained the age of superannuation on 30.4.2006. Therefore the latter part of the relief granted by the Labour Court with regard to his putting in minimum musters for a period of three years is now incapable of execution. However, taking into account the fact that the first respondent is presently aged 64 years, no practical purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Labour Court at this stage. 8. As the first respondent admittedly rendered long service in the petitioner company stretching over 25 years, it would be unduly harsh to deny him the benefits of the said service. No grounds as such are made out warranting interference with the punishment imposed upon the first respondent on merits; however in the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of benefits accruing from his long service would amount to a double punishment. The punishment of dismissal from service is accordingly modified to that of compulsory retirement, thereby enabling the first respondent to claim his terminal benefits. The award dated 30.7.2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad in L.C.I.D. No.270 of 2001 is accordingly set aside and the petitioner company is directed to substitute the punishment as directed supra and calculate the pensionary/retirement benefits due and payable to the first respondent for the services rendered by him from 1976 to 2001 and pay the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 20, 2010. BSB [1] (2003) 3 SCC 605