THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.19113 OF 1998 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by an Electrician of the respondent Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (henceforth referred to as ‘the Steel Plant’), questioning the correctness and validity of an Order passed on 04-05- 1992, removing him from service as a disciplinary measure. The main thrust of the allegation leveled against the writ petitioner was that in the period during 01-11- 1990 to 21-03-1991, he was unauthorisedly absent for, as many as, 64 days and consequently, caused dislocation of work in the respondent Organization. The second limb of the charge was that he attempted to tamper with the Leave Record. The writ petitioner, while working with the Steel Plant, on 23-12-1989, suffered extensive burn injuries in an electrical flash that occurred at the place he was working, resulting in the writ petitioner sustaining 40% burn injuries. He was admitted to Intensive Care Unit of the Hospital maintained by the Steel Plant and he was discharged later on. Thereafter he was also sanctioned 80 days disability leave from 23- 12-1989 up to 12-03-1990. According to the writ petitioner, though he has recovered to a certain extent from these injuries, but nonetheless, due to the consequential health problems he could not maintain regular attendance at his work place. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also further contended that at the relevant point of time the writ petitioner was working as a Technician (Electrical) L-4 Grade and that by an Order passed on 30-09-1991, i.e., during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he was not considered fit for confirmation in the said L-4 Grade and consequently, in terms of Clause-4.2 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, he stood reverted to the lower post of Technician (Electrical) L-3 Grade, with effect from 22-05-1991 and that on 20-05- 1991, the Deputy Manager (Personnel) has, in fact, sought for an assessment of his medical / health condition by convening a Medical Board by the Hospital administration, but even before such a Medical Board could make an assessment of his health condition, the present Order of removal was passed on 04-05-1992. The learned Standing Counsel for the Steel Plant has contended that while the management of the Steel Plant has sympathized with the writ petitioner for a long time in view of the extensive burn injuries sustained by him in an industrial accident that occasioned while he was on duty, but however, in spite of giving a long rope the writ petitioner has not been improving and he has not shown any sense of urgency to improve his attendance and, in fact, he was resorting to the practice of tempering with the Leave Record. The learned Standing Counsel tried to sustain the Order of punishment of removal imposed on the writ petitioner, though there was certain amount of debate generated as to whether in the given circumstances the quantum of punishment imposed would really meet the required degree of proportion or not. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has filed a Memorandum into the Court today indicating that the writ petitioner may be granted the liberty to take recourse of rising an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court concerned, inasmuch as, under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, exclusive power is conferred upon such a Forum to substitute an appropriate punishment to the one imposed by the management, in the event that Forum was satisfied that the punishment imposed is excessive. In view of the Memorandum filed into the Court today, I also deem it appropriate that the facts prevailing in the instant case make it an eminently fit one to be agitated before the appropriate Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, as there is exclusive power available to such a Forum in the matter of substituting an appropriate punishment. Further, the management of the Steel Plant will also have the right to lead evidence to sustain the punishment that is imposed against the workman there. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to accede to the request contained in the Memorandum filed into the Court today and dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to move the appropriate Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, in terms of Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, within a period of 45 days from today, so as to enable the Forum concerned to decide the dispute. No costs --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Note: Issue CC in one wee. (bo) mrk 10th November 2009