CWP No. 6813 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6813 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 21-04-2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ....Petitioner VERSUS Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ludhiana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J This writ petition is directed against the award of the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ludhiana whereby while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the punishment of termination of the services of the respondent was converted into that of a compulsory retirement w.e.f 28.2.2002. The petitioner had terminated the services of the respondent workman on the ground of absence for the period from 28.2.2002 to 26.3.2002. The respondent had pleaded illness for the said absence. The Tribunal however came to the conclusion that the absence from the service was a result of gross negligence of the respondent as he did not care to inform the petitioner on that account but after noticing the fact that there was nothing to suggest an adverse service career of the respondent and also keeping in view the fact that he had rendered 18 years of service, set aside the order of termination and converted it into that of compulsory retirement by exercising its power under Section 11-A of the CWP No. 6813 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Industrial Disputes Act. Aggrieved by the said findings in the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once it was established that the respondent had willfully absented from duty there was no occasion for the Tribunal to exercise this power under Section 11-A. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The Tribunal has justifiably exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Act by noticing that respondent had worked for 18 long years and there is no blemish to his career even though this fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner yet he has been unable to show any material which was produced before the Tribunal to suggest that the career record of the respondent was bad. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that Tribunal has justifiably exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Act by taking into consideration the normal relevant factors which ought to have been taken into consideration at the time of exercising such a power. No ground to interfere is made out. Hence, dismissed. April 21, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge