COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 1087 / 2005 (Old No. 29142/1990) Munfet Ali ……..Petitioner Versus Labour Court, Dehradun & Others. ………Respondents Sri N.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioner/workman. Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned Counsel for the employer/respondent no. 2 30th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity and legality of the award dated 18.6.1990 passed by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation i.e. respondent no. 2. He was served with a chargesheet dated 6.3.1979 for unauthorized absence from duty. Domestic enquiry was held in the matter and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.10.1980. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice and considering his reply, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.3.1981. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and appropriate Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its workman Manfet Ali, Conductor vide order dated 31.3.1981 is proper and/or legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. After considering the materials available on record, the Labour Court answered the aforesaid reference in negative against the workman and held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was proper and fari and punishment of termination awarded to the workman justified the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman. 4. Undisputedly, the workman was absent from his duties from 22.10.1978 to 21.12.1978 without any prior permission. But when he returned to his duties he submitted the explanation along with the medical report. Therefore, in my judgment, the punishment of termination on the ground of absence for few days was grossly disproportionate and excessively high. The Labour Court committed error in holding the punishment of termination commensurate with the nature and gravity of misconduct. Accordingly, workman is reinstated in service and punishment of termination is reduced to the extent that one censure entry shall be given to the workman along with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. No back wages till the date of passing of this order shall be given to the workman. 5. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.7.2008 Prabodh WPMS 1087 of 2005 Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the Review Petitoin No. 80/2009. Permission granted. The Review Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 02.04.2009 LSR