HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.1390 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award made in I.D.No.3 of 2001 dated 28.2.2002 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the dispute referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act for adjudication issue viz., “Whether the action of the management of Heavy Water Plant (M) Aswapuram in terminating the services of Sri D. Veerabhadram, Ex- daily rated worker is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the applicant entitled?”, was answered partly in favour of the workman directing the petitioner-management to reinstate the workman into service with temporary status on a minimum pay scale, but without backwages and further directing not to count the period from date of dismissal to reinstatement for terminal benefits like pension, gratuity etc. The petitioner is the management of Heavy Water Plant, Aswapuram, Khammam District. Respondent No.1 is the workman. It appears that the 1st respondent absented for his duties for about 80 days from January, 1997 to July 1998. Though such absenteeism was condoned by way of granting leave etc., the management issued a show cause notice on 3.9.1998 for the alleged absenteeism from 1997 to 1998 and for some other charges like that he was found in a drunken state while on duty etc. The workman simply accepted the allegations in the show cause notice and sought pardon saying that he would not repeat such misconduct in future. Inspite of that, he was terminated by order dated 3.12.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the workman raised a dispute through Union and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the Central Government and the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, in turn referred the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act for adjudication of the above issue. It is the case of the workman that the management could not find any fault from 1984 to 1996, but they have started building up the case with an intention to remove him from service and issued a show cause notice, but however, the workman sought pardon and inspite of that, he was removed from service and no detailed enquiry was conducted as required under law and therefore, the action of the management is arbitrary and illegal. On behalf of the workman, WW1 and WW2 were marked and a document Ex.W1 was marked. On behalf of the management, MW1 was examined and documents M1 to M25 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material, the labour Court recorded findings at paragraph No.20 of the award, which read as under: “It may be noted that from the record in the counter itself it is clear from January, 1997 he was unauthorizedly absent till July, 1998 for about 80 days. Anyway, that may be besides the points, but it may be seen that on 17.6.1998 he fell in a drunken stage and an independent domestic enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted when the petitioner admitted his charges and requested for pardon, he was allowed to work. Again on 17.10.1998 the petitioner came to the office in a state of intoxication and slept during office hours. He admitted the charges specifically. In the cross- examination he stated that he signed Ex.M6. He denied that he received a warning letter dated 14.3.1996 or Exs.M12 or M13 even WW2 has admitted that higher officers were writing against the petitioner for sleeping drunken and absenteeism. Further even it is admitted for arguments sake that then the Tribunal has yet considered its merits and take into account facts as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No.33 of 1961 between Rohtas Industries Limited Vs. Ali Hasan. It may be seen that Ex.M1 requesting the Medical Officer to examine the petitioner. The Medical Officer gives Ex.M2 showing that he was under intoxication. Ex.M3 is another letter showing that he fell down from moped in an accident as he was under the influence of liquor. Medical Officer stated in Ex.M4 that he was under influence of alcohol. He was admitted and discharged. Ex.M5 is a letter by the petitioner asking for time to give explanation. Ex.M6 is the clear acceptance of the charges by the petitioner on 22.9.1998. So it is clear that even on 3rd September, he was guilty of drunkenness and he admitted the same under Ex.M6 of his lapse on 3.9.1998. Again there is complaint against him on 17.10.1998 vide Ex.M7. Ex.M8 is about his absence on 27.2.1996. Ex.M9 is also a memorandum issued to him. Ex.M10 is the admission of his guilt by the petitioner. It is dated 8.3.1996. Ex.M11 is the warning issued to him. Ex.M12 again dated 28.1.1997 showing that he is absent unauthorisedly and again warning. Ex.M13 is another letter showing that he was unauthorisedly absent for 11 days from 4th February, 1997. Similarly, another letter for 1997 is Ex.M14 for unauthorized absence. Ex.M15 is another warning letter dated 14.8.2001. Ex.M18 is another letter dated 22.1.1998 for unauthorized absence. Ex.M.17 is office order dated 4th February, 1994 granting temporary status to the petitioner. Ex.M.18 is show cause notice dated 3.9.1998. Ex.M19 is the termination notice. Ex.M.20 is the victimization of dismissal of appeal. Ex.M22 is an appeal for reconsideration. Ex.M23 is the reply given to the ALC(C). Ex.M24 is the conciliation proceedings. Ex.M25 is the failure report. It may be seen that as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment stated supra, Rohtas Industries Ltd., in case an enquiry is made it is open to the Tribunal to consider the merits and take into account facts. It may be seen that domestic enquiry was conducted on 2.7.1998 and submitted report holding that the petitioner is not sincere in his duty. Further petitioner has been admitting his lapses several times. Therefore, a notice of termination is given. Accordingly, termination notice vide Ex.M18 giving him one month time from the date of which the notice is served to him. From all this, it is found that he has been habitually absent and several chances have been given to him and added to that he started coming in drunken stage to the work. Question is whether he deserves any leniency and whether Section 11A can be invoked. It may be seen that he has put in service from 1984 onwards and he has been terminated. His services were terminated on 3.12.1998, he has been granted temporary status vide Ex.M17 in 1994 with retrospective effect from 1.9.1993. It may be seen that he is a low paid employee, I am of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service can be modified. Hence, the reference is ordered accordingly. The action of the management of HWP(M), Aswapuram in which resulted in termination of his services of Ex-Daily rated worker is legal but in the circumstances stated supra, is disproportionate to the gravity of offence. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated by the respondent within 30 days from the publication of this award as casual worker with temporary status on a minimum pay scale and is not entitled for any backwages. And period from dismissal to reinstatement shall not be counted for terminal benefits like pension, gratuity etc.” From the above, it is obvious that the domestic enquiry was conducted on 2.7.1998 and a report was submitted holding that the workman is guilty, and since the workman admitted his lapses several times, he was terminated from service. However, while holding that termination of service of the workman is legal but in the circumstances, it is disproportionate to the gravity of offence alleged against him, the labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman into service on a minimum pay scale. The labour Court made it clear that the workman is not entitled for any backwages, and the period of service from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement shall not be counted for any other purpose. The above order was passed by the labour Court after taking over all circumstances into consideration and while exercising its powers conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such discretionary order passed by the labour Court cannot be interfered with under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Registry shall dispatch the copy of the order to the residential address of the 1st respondent-workman. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated: 10.2.2011 Nn. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.1390 OF 2003 10.2.2011