THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20178 of 1998 Dated 21-01-2008 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Godavarikhani Bus Depot. ..... PETITIONER AND Bhogi Kistaiah & another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20178 of 1998 O R D E R: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No.128 of 1994 dated 16-06-1997, the A.P.S.R.T.C. is before this Court. The first respondent, driver with the respondent-Corporation, was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 15-04-1991 to 20-08-1991 without any intimation or sanction of leave i.e. his absence was for a period exceeding four months. An enquiry was held and, on the first respondent being found guilty, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Tribunal held the charge of unauthorized absence as established. However, with regards the quantum of punishment, the Tribunal held the punishment to be excessive on the ground that the first respondent had produced the medical certificates before the enquiry officer in proof of his ill health and that the certificates, though produced belatedly, were counter-signed by the RTC Medical Officer. The Tribunal further held that the first respondent had contracted an inter-caste marriage and was having troubles with his father-in-law, that the possibility of the first respondent having troubles with his father-in-law cannot be ruled out, that there was no need to show harsh attitude and that the extreme step of dismissal should not be resorted to except in cases of grave charges. According to the Tribunal, imposition of penalty of censure, while treating the period of absence as medical leave or leave which he was eligible, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, an award was passed directing the petitioner-Corporation herein to reinstate the first respondent into service with attendant benefits in respect of increments only and with back wages. The Tribunal imposed the punishment of censure and treated the period of absence as medical leave or leave which he was entitled to. While it is no doubt true that the Labour Court has jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, to interfere with the quantum of punishment such interference cannot be on grounds of misplaced sympathy or as a matter of course. While the Tribunal may well have been justified in holding that the punishment of removal from service was excessive, it was extremely lenient in imposing on the first respondent the punishment of censure. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was unauthorisedly absent from duty without intimation or sanction of leave for a period exceeding four months. Undue indulgence in such matters of grave indiscipline would have a deleterious effect on other workmen also and would affect the discipline of the organization. The Tribunal having itself held that the first respondent had not produced any evidence that he had problems on account of his inter-caste marriage, ought not to have relied on such a factor as justifying lenience with regards imposition of punishment. Personal problems of an employee cannot be a ground to show leniency for acts of indiscipline. Smt P.Rajani Reddy, learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, would fairly submit that pursuant to the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the first respondent has been reinstated into service. More than 10 years have elapsed since the award was passed and the petitioner was reinstated into service, I do not consider it necessary at this stage to interfere in so far as reinstatement of the first respondent-workman is concerned. However, with regards the appropriate punishment to be imposed, I consider it necessary to remand the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act to determine the punishment for such acts of indiscipline in remaining absent from duty for a period of four months. Since the dispute relates to the year 1994, and more than 13 years have elapsed since then, I consider it appropriate to direct the Labour Court to consider and decide the matter, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 21-01-2008 usd