IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22719 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 08, 2011. Union of India .....Petitioner versus Sher Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Karanjit Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The first respondent joined the petitioner-Management as a Typist in the year 1982. He was promoted as a Senior Typist on 14.10.1991. The first respondent started absenting from duty w.e.f. 12.5.1992 for which he was charge-sheeted followed by an enquiry and based upon the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, he was removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11.6.1994. The first respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), to decide “whether the action of the Management in awarding the punishment of removal from service of CWP No.22719 of 2011 [2] the workman was justified and if not, to what relief he was entitled to?” The Tribunal did not find any fault with the enquiry proceedings as the same were held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, however, invoked its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and having regard to the fact that the workman had served for more than 10 years and there was no previous instance of his absence from duty and also keeping in view the fact that the workman was already more than 60 years of age, has converted the punishment of 'removal' from service to 'compulsory retirement from service'. The Union of India-Management feeling aggrieved has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. There is indeed no dispute that the only allegation levelled against the workman was absence from duty. There is nothing on record to suggest that the workman was a 'habitual absentee'. Section 11-A of the Act enables the Tribunal or the Labour Court to mould the order of discharge or dismissal of a workman wherever such punishment is found unjustified and to give such other relief including lesser punishment in lieu thereof as the circumstance of a case may require. In my considered view, the Tribunal was justified in imposing lesser punishment of compulsory retirement in place of removal from service as the extreme penalty of removal or dismissal from service is CWP No.22719 of 2011 [3] warranted in cases of grave misconduct like embezzlement and/or persistent insubordination etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand where the first respondent had earlier earned a clean service record, the punishment of his compulsory retirement from service would meet the ends of justice. No case to interfere with the impugned Award by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. December 08, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE