XI-HC—ZZ D(\ The pmsent peu'h'on h: datzd 4.3.1992 passad in Ca .the Presiding O$cer Labot Lr Court, Durg, dimcting the reinstatement of the Respondent No.2 to the sewice with 50% bwk wages. year 1978. The Respond ,3. 12. 1983 Without pe h e 28.6.2005 peh'h‘onels. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for the Respondent No.2. Hcaxd. is been Eed against the Older ac No. 14/91 - 1.D.Act (Rat) by case ate that the Respondent The brief kcts of the No.2 was appointed as thereaner he was pmmoted ss1o petitioner terminated his s itself without issuing s enquiry. The case of the Res all of a sudden as such he remained absent for two day Shri Afun Sac, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Learned Labour Cou wkidar in the year 1976, the post of’l‘im'ekeepet in the t No.2 remained absent on of-the petitioner, themfom the vide onier datai 3.12.1983 cause notice or holding an ndent No.2 is that he Ell sick ould not join the services and .e. 3rd and 4th December, 1983. after having considered the arguments of both the parties came to the conclusion that the order of termination petitioner. The Labour Court (@W) was dispmportionafr to the misconduct alleged by the o XI-HC—22 mm ma1%a accordingly set aside the orda minstate the Respondent No.i wages. Learned counsel for mmammg absent mun one d this is sumcient gound to terminate the service of the Respondent No.2 without ho ing an enquiry. Learned counsel for th xespondent No.2 submits that the petiu'oner had not w 'ted even for one day and terminated the service of the ' of termination and dimcted to Zin the service with 5096 back the petitioner submits that y amounts to misconduct and Respondent No.2 on the very mst day when the Respondent No.2 failed to join the duties on account of his illness. The show cause notice or has no enquiry befoie imposing exile service. According to lear No.2 the punishment is alleged misconduct. He passed by the Labour Court Afterconsidering the Iamoftheviewthatthis punishment of termination to the aneged miscondut Respondent No.2 remained a days and on the’very llrstday the peh’h'oner had taken exh‘eme steps o‘f terminatio show cause notice or hold' (tettai) petitioner has not issued any t conducted any depanmenml me penalty of termination nom counsel for the Respondent ingly disproportionate to the - submits that the order just and legal. teutions of both the parties one of the cases where the shockingly dispmporh'onate View of the fact that the‘ sent nom service only for two nom service without issuing an enquiry. No opportunity of s n ' c k r n s XI—HC-22 34 hearing was given; as such this A of the principles of natural justice. In‘ the above circumstax back wages There 1s no pomt passed by the Labour Court in t Accordingly, the petition s In view of the peculiar faets and cimumstances of the case, no order as to costs. lees the lahour Court was nght 1n duectmg the lemstatement of the senuce w1th 50% to Interfere With the award he facts of the case. tands dismissed. M_——-—.>;:’// Sdl- Satish K A9“‘“°"‘ Judge , a»? (nahem also amounts to violation