THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34065 of 1998 DATE: 6-2-2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kamareddy Nizamabad Dist … Petitioner AND 1. Md. Yousuf and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34065 of 1998 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of Labour Court –II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.102 of 1995 dated 23.2.1998, the present writ petition is filed. The first respondent-driver was alleged to have been unauthorizedly absent from duty from 8.3.1991 to 23.3.1991 i.e., for a period of 16 days. A departmental enquiry was held and thereafter, vide proceedings dated 24.7.1991, the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the first respondent. The statutory remedies availed by the 1st respondent were of no avail resulting in his invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court held that, as per the departmental enquiry, it was evident that the petitioner had initially applied for two days leave and had later sought for extension of leave on account of his father’s illness and that the 1st respondent had also subsequently fallen ill. The Labour Court also held that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner had submitted medical certificate in proof of his ill-health and that it was also not in dispute that the 1st respondent’s father expired during the said period. The Labour Court further held that the petitioner herein had not questioned the genuineness of the medical certificate submitted by the 1st respondent in proof of his illness. The only contention urged by the petitioner herein before the Labour Court, in justification of the order of removal, was that the 1st respondent workman had abstained from duty without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave. While holding that the petitioner should have obtained prior sanction, the Labour Court observed that there was reasonable cause for his abstention on account of his father’s ill-health and his death later and that such circumstances justified his absence from duty. The Labour Court noted that the enquiry officer had not even recorded a finding that the 1st respondent had filed a false medical certificate and, at best, it could be stated that the 1st respondent had sought for leave belatedly. The Labour Court noted that the 1st respondent – workman had raised the Industrial Disputes on 7.11.1995 and therefore directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, would vehemently contend that the 1st respondent’s act of abstaining from duty without permission affects discipline in the organization and, while the circumstances may have justified his proceeding on leave, he ought to have sought for sanction of leave before abstaining from duty and that his action, in seeking leave after expiry of the period of absence, amounted to misconduct. The facts and circumstances of the present case would show that the first respondent’s absence from duty was on account of his father’s ill-health and his demise during the said period of absence of 15 days. While it is no doubt true that prior sanction of leave has not been obtained, it cannot be said that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed. While the order of removal was passed on 24.7.1991, the Labour Court, in its award dated 23.2.1998, had directed payment of 25% back wages and had denied the 1st respondent – workman 75% of the back wages. The period from the date of removal till the date of the award is more than six years. The 1st respondent has been awarded 25% of the back wages i.e., one and half years salary. Even if the date of filing of the I.D. i.e., 7.11.1995 is taken into consideration, the period from the date of filing of the I.D. till the date of the award, is nearly two and half years. In effect, the 1st respondent has been denied approximately 40% of the back wages as a measure of punishment even for this period from the date he filed the application before the Labour Court till the date of the Award. It cannot be said that the punishment, as substituted by the Labour Court, of denial of 40% back wages for the charge held established, of proceeding on leave without prior sanction for about 15 days, is so grossly disproportionate as to shock the conscience of this Court and necessitating intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I see no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. __________ 6-2-2008 asp