IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4262 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 04, 2011. Oriental Insurance Company .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Labour Court cum-Industrial Tribunal and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ramesh Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 deceased-workman joined the petitioner-Insurance Company as a Peon on 10.3.1989. He was dismissed from service pursuant to a regular enquiry on the allegation of having remained absent from duty for 452 days during the years 1996 to 1999. The Labour Court though decided the issue of fairness of enquiry in favour of the management vide its order dated 22.2.2010 but it has found as a matter of fact that during a part of the alleged absence period from 21.1.1999 to 10.8.1999, i.e. 202 days, the workman was seriously ill. The Labour Court has further found that the unauthorized absence from duty of the workman could not be termed willful or deliberate as no medical leave being due, the management could consider him on 'extra-ordinary leave' instead of absence from duty CWP No.4262 of 2011 [2] as the reason for absence was beyond his control. It may be mentioned here that the Tribunal has returned a categoric finding of fact that the cause of absence from duty, namely, the serious ailment of the workman was known to the management. Its plea that the workman abandoned the employment thus, was totally contrary to the record. The fact that the workman unfortunately passed away while the reference was still pending consideration before the Tribunal, also leads to an irresistible conclusion that he was actually suffering from serious ailment which led to his untimely death. In these circumstances, the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been justifiably invoked by the Tribunal to hold that the punishment of dismissal from service was too harsh to be imposed and it calls for no interference by this Court. In my considered view, the wife of the deceased-workman and/or other dependents/family members deserve to be awarded all the service benefits upto the date of death of the deceased-workman, who shall be deemed to have been reinstated with continuity of service till the date of his death. No case to interfere with the impugned award is made out. Dismissed. November 04, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE