IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15552 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 03, 2011. Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner versus The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar and ors .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Divay Sarup, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 21.3.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Hisar, answering the reference against him and upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby his services were terminated. The petitioner joined the Haryana Roadways as a Conductor on 10.2.1980. He started absenting from duty w.e.f. 21.1.2000 and did not resume duties despite the notice sent to him. The petitioner was charge- sheeted for being willfully absent from duty to which he did not submit any reply. An ex-parte enquiry was held against the petitioner and the allegation of his absenting from duty without any reasonable cause, having CWP No.15552 of 2011 [2] been proved, the Disciplinary Authority terminated his services. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also declined. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an 'industrial dispute' which has been answered against him vide the impugned award. The Labour Court has found no fault with the enquiry proceedings held against the petitioner as he refused to participate in those proceedings despite an opportunity afforded to him. The Labour Court has thus rightly held that the enquiry proceedings were held in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. However, the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration that Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 also exists on the Statute Book. The said provision enables the Labour Court/Tribunal to set-aside the order of discharge or dismissal of a workman where it is satisfied that such punishment is unjustified and award a lesser punishment in lieu thereof. The impugned award does not suggest any discussion as to why the Labour Court held that punishment of termination of service was justified especially when the petitioner had served the department for almost 20 years and even if his retention in service was unwarranted, a lesser punishment like compulsory or pre-mature retirement from service could be awarded. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that the impugned Award so far as it holds the departmental proceedings against the petitioner to be valid is upheld. However, the matter is remitted to the Labour Court, Hisar to re-consider the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner keeping in view his length of service, CWP No.15552 of 2011 [3] the service record and other relevant factors within the meaning of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court shall pass the appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. November 03, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE