COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 5269/2001 (Old No. 27145/1995) Shobha Ram …….Petitioner Versus The State of U.P. & Others …….Respondents Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner/workman. Sri Ashish Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 & 5. 7th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity and legality of the award dated 13.3.1995 passed by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 20.2.1976 on the post of Sweeper in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Saharanpur. He was served with a chargesheet dated 4.5.1987 for unauthorized absence from duty on 2.5.1987. Charge to the effect that on 2.5.1987 he was found in intoxicated condition at the bus station was also made against the petitioner. After holding the enquiry in the matter, services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 3.7.1987. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and appropriate Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its workman 2 Shobha Ram S/o Sri Baldeva, Sweeper w.e.f. 3.7.1987 is proper and/or legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. After considering the materials available on record, the Labour Court answered the aforesaid reference in negative against the workman and held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was proper and fair and punishment of termination awarded to the workman justified the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman. 4. Undisputedly, workman was absent from his duties on 2.5.1987 without any prior permission. But he submitted his explanation along with the medical report. It is also undisputed that the petitioner/workman was not medically examined and hence the charge of consuming liquor on 2.5.1987 remains unsubstantiated. Therefore, in my judgment, the punishment of termination for one day’s absence from duty was grossly disproportionate and excessively high. The Labour Court committed error in holding the punishment of termination commensurate with the nature and gravity of the misconduct. Accordingly, termination order dated 3.7.1987 is hereby set aside and the workman is reinstated in service and punishment of termination is reduced to the extent that one censure entry shall be given to the workman along with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Workman shall be given 50 per cent back wages after adjustment of the stoppage of one increment. 3 5. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 7.8.2008 Prabodh