IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14116 of 1999 Date of decision: 21.08.2009 Satish Kumar (deceased) through his L.Rs …Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Panipat and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the award of the Labour Court rejecting the reference sought by the workman that the termination of service was illegal and unjustified. The award confirmed the punishment meted out after a departmental proceeding taken against the workman for three charges : first, for remaining absent from 02.04.1991 to 17.05.1991 without applying for leave. The second charge was a sequel to first one namely that he had applied for leave on 24.05.1991 belatedly for his absence between 02.04.1991 to 17.05.1991 and the third charge was that he had been persistently coming late on various dates as evidenced through Ex.M-17 to 19 when warning letters had been issued to him. The workman did not participate in the enquiry and he was proceeded Civil Writ Petition No.14116 of 1999 - 2 - ex parte and the Enquiry Officer found that all the charges had been proved and hence, the punishment of dismissal from service was made. 2. Before the Labour Court, the attempt of the workman to contend that the enquiry had not been properly conducted and that the person who passed the order of dismissal was not competent to pass such an order, were rejected. The Labour Court, therefore, confirmed the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and rejected the reference. Subsequent to the award and during the pendency of the proceedings, the workman himself has expired and the legal representatives have been prosecuting the case. The submission of the learned counsel was confined only to the quantum of punishment applied to the workman by dismissal. While this Court exercising the powers under Article 226 shall not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment, judicial review is certainly possible where the punishment is either capricious or grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It must be seen that it is not a case of prolonged absence or even a case where there had been no attempt made by the workman to legitimize his absence by an appropriate leave letter. The absence had been for a period of 46 days and the workman had also presented leave letter seeking for sanction of leave. The previous misconduct attributed to him was again not so serious as to be taken as a person unworthy of being retained in service. The power to modify the punishment was always available under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and, in my view, the Labour Court has not exercised its discretion which it could have applied by having due regard to the fact that no serious impropriety was made except for Civil Writ Petition No.14116 of 1999 - 3 - unauthorized absence for a period of 46 days. 3. The workman was governed by the Haryana Dairy Development (Group C) Service Rules, 1998, which sets out through rule 14 that the members of the service would be governed by the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. The Haryana Rules provide for penalties and Rule 4 which contemplates amongst the major penalties, compulsory retirement or removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. In this case, the workman himself had died and, in my view, interest of justice would be appropriately met if the order of dismissal from service is converted to one of compulsory retirement that shall enable the legal representatives of the deceased person to work for such terminal benefits for the number of years of service that he held with the management as the relevant Rules permit. It has been seen from the records that the workman had been employed from the year 1971 continuously till he was terminated from service for his absence from 02.04.1991. 4. The award of the Labour Court, under the circumstances, is modified only to the extent regarding the quantum of punishment and in all other respects the award of the Labour Court is confirmed. 5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.08.2009 sanjeev