THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.999 of 2007 Date: 23.09.2010 Between: Edla Shekar .. Petitioner AND The Central Governemnt Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court, M-2 Block, Manoranjan Complex, M.J. Road, Hyderabad-1 and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.999 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner, a former Mazdoor in the service of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for brevity, ‘the Company’), assails the award dated 13.07.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, in L.C.I.D.No.240 of 2004. By the said Award, the Labour Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and confirmed his termination from service under the Company’s order dated 28.03.2004. The petitioner joined the service of the Company as a Badli Filler on 17.10.1986 and was thereafter promoted as a General Mazoor in the year 1995. He was dismissed from service with effect from 31.03.2004 by way of the proceedings dated 28.03.2004. The dismissal was occasioned by his unauthorized absence from duty from 09.01.2002 to 24.10.2002. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in this regard under charge sheet dated 09.02.2003 on the grounds of ‘habitual late attendance’ or ‘habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause’, amounting to a misconduct under the Company Standing Orders. The petitioner submitted an explanation and thereafter participated in the enquiry which was instituted to look into the matter. It was his case that he did not attend duty owing to ill- health and he produced a medical certificate issued by the Osmania General Hospital (OGH), Hyderabad in this regard. The Labour Court by order dated 24.03.2005 held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Company was valid. Thereafter, upon consideration of the material on record, the Labour Court found that even during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was counselled on 09.06.2003 in the presence of his family members, colleagues and union representatives and he gave an undertaking to the effect that he would work not below 22 musters per month in the next three months i.e., 10.06.2003 to 09.09.2003. However, he attended duty only for 5 days in June 2003, 19 days in July, 2003 and 4 days in August, 2003. The Labour Court further found that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence in proof of his having been sick during the entire period of over 10 months from 09.01.2002 to 24.10.2002. The medical certificate produced by him from the OGH, Hyderabad did not disclose that he was treated by the said hospital and merely mentioned that he was medically fit to resume duty in October, 2002. In such circumstances, the Labour Court held that the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority, with regard to the charge of unauthorized absence, being established, it did not warrant interference. Insofar as the doctrine of proportionality is concerned, the Labour Court found on facts that the petitioner did not substantiate that he was unable to attend duty on account of serious illness. The Labour Court also took into account the fact that the petitioner worked only for four days in the entire year 2002. The Labour Court therefore held that sufficient grounds were not made out for interfering with the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the I.D. Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Labour Court erred in exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 2-A (2) and 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act of 1947). It is his case that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is unduly harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and established against him. The learned counsel placed reliance on case law in support of his contention. However, on consideration of the facts and the material on record, I am of the opinion that the judgments cited by the learned counsel are of no avail to the petitioner in the present case. In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Rawel Singh[1], the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the workman had remained absent for a few days unauthoriszedly and the Labour Court applied the doctrine of proportionality and reduced the punishment. The same was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the workman on the ground of absence for a few days was grossly disproportionate and excessive and confirmed the finding of the Labour Court and the High Court. This case is therefore distinguishable on facts. In M. Krishnam Raju v. The Electronics Corporation of India and others[2] a learned Judge of this Court held that if an employee established acceptable cause for his absence it would not amount to misconduct. This case has no application to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner failed to substantiate and establish his alleged illness for a period of over 10 months. In Ramu v. The District and Sessions Judge, Kolar and others[3], a learned Judge of Karnataka High Court was dealing with a case of unauthorized absence over three spells resulting in three disciplinary proceedings; and in all of which the workman remained ex parte. The Court opined that his peculiar mental attitude and the facts of the case warranted reduction of the punishment. The case therefore turned on the facts and no ratio was laid down. I do not see how the said judgment is of assistance to the petitioner. The established facts of the present case demonstrate that the petitioner put in only 4 days of work in an entire year and thereafter, when he was granted the chance of correcting himself during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he failed to make use of such opportunity. Viewed from any angle, no ground is made out for interference with the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Company, which has been rightly confirmed by the Labour Court. The award under challenge therefore does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 23.09.2010 Isn [1] 2008 (2) L.L.N. 647 [2] 1995 (1) ALD 478 [3] 1989 LAB. I.C.1818