IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 19285 of 2004(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.HEDWIN (FORMERLY WORKER GRADE III, HINDUSTAN LATEX), ROCK COTTAGE, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K SRI.SANDEEP.E. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.19285/2004/U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.HL/IR/1-7/92-93 DATED 18-1- 1993. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-8-1993 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20-11-1993. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORTO DATED 21-12-1993. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HL/IR/I-7/93-94/16673 DATED 25-2-1994. EXT. P6: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 5-3-1994. EXT. P7: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 20-11-2000 FILED IN I.D.31/2000. EXT. P8: COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 9-2-2004 IN I.D. 31/2000. EXT. P9: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 21-1-1994. EXT. P10: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SCHEDULE FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT IN ID 31/2000. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.19285 of 2004 (U) ======================= Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this writ petition is the workman involved in I.D. No.31/2000 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. He is challenging Ext. P8 award of the Tribunal in that ID upholding his dismissal from service as a punishment for proved for misconduct. The charge levelled against him was unauthorised absence from duty 26.8.1993 onwards. An enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was found for guilty of misconduct of unauthorised absence, pursuant to which he was dismissed from service. Therefore the Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point and came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted validly and properly and the findings are also supported by evidence on record. Thereafter, considering the past performance of the petitioner, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal as well. That award is under challenge before me. The petitioner is not now challenging the wp(c) no.19285/04 -2- validity of the enquiry as such. But only the validity of the findings on the basis of the evidence on the enquiry. According to the petitioner, he was unaware of the procedure in the company that he must produce medical certificate in support of leave applications and it is under the above circumstances that petitioner could not submit leave applications in time. Further, the petitioner points out that the enquiry officer found that the petitioner did not produce medical certificates from the authorised medical officer. According to the petitioner standing orders do not contain any specific stipulation that the medical certificate shall be from an authorised medical officer. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the management- respondent would submit that there was sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner. He would further submit that the findings are based on categoric admission, in a statement filed by the petitioner before the enquiry officer. He points out that the petitioner has a long history of unauthorised absence and submits he has been punished for the identical misconducts several times. According to the management, the petitioner was punished 8 times for wp(c) no.19285/04 -3- unauthorised absence. 3. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that some of the punishments were only for absence for a few hours or one or two days which cannot be seriously counted for the purpose of imposing the harsh punishment of dismissal from service which according to the counsel for the petitioner would amount to shockingly disproportionate punishment. From a reading of the award itself, it is clear that the workman himself categorically admitted his guilt before the enquiry officer. Paragraph 10 of award reads thus: "The findings of the enquiry officer is on the basis of the admission of the charge by the workman in the enquiry. The enquiry officer recorded the statement of the workman in the enquiry wherein the workman has admitted the charge of auauthorised (sic) absence. He has further admitted that he failed to submit leave application within time and according to him he was not aware of submitting leave application in due time. Towards the end of his statement he has unconditionally accepted the charge leveled against him and prayed for mercy. On the basis of admission of the workman the enquiry officer are legal and valid." Therefore it is too late in the day for the petitioner now to contend that the petitioner's guilt has not been properly proved wp(c) no.19285/04 -4- in the enquiry. 4. Now the only question remaining is as to the validity of punishment of the dismissal imposed on the petitioner. It appears that from 1987 onwards, the petitioner has been regularly in the habit of absenting himself without prior intimation or leave. It is also proved by adequate material that the petitioner has been punished several times for unauthorised absence which punishments have become final. It cannot be held that the punishment of dismissal from service of such an employee is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct found to have been committed by the petitioner. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Industrial Tribunal in Ext.P8 award. However, taking a lenient view, I direct that the punishment of dismissal be converted to one of discharge so that the petitioner would be able to get terminal benefits. Ext.P8 award would stand modified accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp