Delhi District Court
Of vs . on 16 May, 2007
Palaniappan
lying
2.
to
and
carefully
kindly
isINsubmitted
no
his
THE
tobeuse.
claim
hisgone
COURT
taken
"5.
7.
witnesses
evidence
may,
to
mutually
habitual
service.
I)credit
Brief
that
mayR.M.
Thereafter,
through
interfere
andby
facts
repeated
but
be
OF
Thethe(Supra)
6Angshuman
negligence
irreconcilable
adduced
its
dismissed.
the
It
The
and
SH.
ofthe SCC
charge
punishment
was
award,
same
thewith
file.
he
and
O.P.
list
learned 339
contended
caseatserved
was
infrequent
of
SAINI:
wereof
set
the
that
the
as Das
situations
not
documents.
duties
of
made
aside
counsel
said
case
not adismissal
granted
decision
on
PRESIDING
absenceGupta
demand
enquiry,
out
was,
the
and
regardingand from
for
basis
is
order
as
lack
may
denude
of
of Vs.
This
of
in
notice
the
the
no
of
the
OFFICER:
be
ofause.
record
workman
set
unauthorized onaside the
are
appellant
submission
tribunal
discharge
management
the
interest
present LABOUR
ruling
judicial case,
infurther
has
reported
is
the
process
or
absence
under
COURT
Jutealso
no Authority's
relied
contrary
dismissal
in
jurisdiction
Section
ofwithout
R.
CorporationNO.
upon
itsv. dignity,
Dharam
VII:
to
11-A
work.
aobtaining
the
ruling
and
DELHI.
toofrecord
ofWhen
authority,
Quarter
sit
of
the
India direct
this
leaveas
in
Actan
that some
management
and
from workman
absence the of other
place
Sessions;
Court
the
judgment
reinstatement
only
predictability
employee
in
3. on advance.
was
anworkman
punishment
of
when
1.7.2004
inemployee
working
work
Jagdish
Ex
over
absents
AThe itparte
and
has
of
Ltd. the
causes
but
isconduct
bare may
the
as
Prasad
&respectability.
not
himself
Virgo,
satisfied
decision
todriver
fromworkman
be
Ors.specified
no
perusal disruption
awarded
Saxena
of
use.
(1952
from
with
his
1998 of
the
that
ofthe on
IHence,
as
employees
the
(2)
duty
placev.
LLJ
thein
punishment
employer
in
such
toState
QBD
management
place
the
which
without
526 of
record this
termsof
1)
work
ofduty.
in
claim
dismissal.
ofsince
withthe
In
that
Madhya
of
as
and
imposed
sanctioned
this
revealsan the
conditions,
on
case
appellate
record
the
by
Bharat
that isleave
facts
the nothing
body.
the if
wasmanagement
(now
any,
the
admitted
not
workmanThe
Authority
asbut
Madhya
it
supplied
interference
thinks
irresponsible
inwasisthe can,
wholly
Pradesh),
fit,
I.D. topresent
or
on
NO.
charge- him.
with give
and
the in
: 285/2004
1994.
prayer
4.
8.
My
management
17. attention
BalachenammaHe
to set case,
(AIR
Moreover,
the
such
shockingly
10.
basis
extreme
used
On
MyIn
has
sheeted andaside
the
decision
view
findings
to
other
been
of
a1061
P. work
also
pleadings
plea
videand
the
the
ofThough
invited
there
disproportionate
relief
(Supra), the
leads
honestly,
on
SC
record,
inquiry
can
ofofthe
facts
charge-sheetisto
of
guilty
to
1070).
hardly
to
under
the
issues
no
the
the
and
come
as
indiscipline
sincerely
material
employer
parties,
following
workman
ought
well
law
are
Section
beto
dated That
as
referred
justified.
as
the
aand
following
under
not
on conclusion
termination
authorities
11-A,
degree
case
will
including
and
faithfully
record
toto :- chaos.
be
The
above,
is
theissues
of :-and andIwere
Itfind
had
to
is
II) Guljar theSimgh workman Vs.13.11.2003, was
Union absent of for four
B E T W Echarge entered
absolutely
that
justified
the
guilt
Tribunal
about
Ex.MW1/1
EN award
he
of uptothe
inever
onlyof
hasdistinguishable.
this
workman
any
the
when
employee
India
claimed
the
for lesser
case
record the
powerconcerned.
2006remaining
was
punishment
before
findings
and being to
misconduct
There
a the
II LLJ 690. absent
pleareduce
arrived
To habitually
in
inquiry
are
ofsupport
lieu notof
atthe
by
of
unblemished
reinstate
settled
submitted
that
months thefor act
but the
trial
that
guilty
course
officer
in
discharge
its
quantum
negligent
absence.
of
record
conclusion
workman
vide
the
management
the
unauthorizedly
the entered
certain
or
previousworkman
order
In
of
enquiry
of
in
or
before
service.
view
duties
punishment
dismissal
with
instead.
dated
the
general
for
record is
ofthe
constitutes
Industrial
are
and
oneconsequential
running
16.12.2005
the
The
ofmanagement
as
Under
observations
an
Governing
perverse
itmanagement
hundred the
exhibited
has
absenteeismtransport
Tribunal
serious
circumstances
the:-sixty
to benefits
English
or
that
Standing
belack
about
misconduct
business
orcharge-sheeted
three
was done
the
hetheof
not including
andand
proved it
ISSUE NO.1 law,
the
was
Labour
within
interest
Orders
days : importance
management
of the not
aduring
case
plea
the
unauthorized
Court,
supplied
inmay parameters
ofthe
the is
as
guilty
require:
ofthe
with
employer's
guilty
perioda case
has
leave
departmental
list
ofcommencing
to
may
of
law.
ofcanbewitnesses
victimisation,
work.
be,
unequivocal
Possession
behas treated
enquiry
to
Ample
from andgive of
as
III) Harinath Singh Yadav Vs.
I)
him
against
The P.
continuity
causes
the punishment
vide Venkatesan
great
him.
workman charge-sheet
of
and
list
unfair
reasons
power
material
misconduct.
inconvenience
service
1.1.2003 the
how
imposed
However,
Sh. of
labour
is
Court
inwas
itand
Sreepal to Vs.
itself
documents.
support
dated
should Management
produced
practice
upon
full
must not
to13.11.2003
31.10.2003.
in the back
of
be
the
ask
himsufficient;
its
or
conducted.
instant public
before
wages.
the
is
mala
decision.
neither
person
In of
alleging
also.
The
case, fide"
the itPattukottai
his Tribunal
disproportionate
and
The
We
has
It cross-
workman
workman that
isifhave
power
tosubmitted
the hebe
in
was Azhagiri
remained
absent that
nor
plea
here
examination,
Provided
has
exercised
each toaof
case
be
clear
guilty
in Administrative/
exercised
that
to accordance
case
show
he
in
is of admitted
any
qualified
as
judiciously
aLtd. person
proceeding
towith how the law."
that
whotheChairman,
and
Court he
under
admitted
concerned
merenever
must this
useas Tamul
S/o Sh.Transport
Raja denied
Ram Corporation
that he was(Now renamed
absenting
absent
I)
the
harshworkman
and
unauthorizedly
itemployees
Whether
not
the
complained
5.
section
of does
hadthe
facts
enternot
nowords
the
andinterest
call
In
awereprovincial
without
enquiry
against
plea
did
view
Labour
for
'disproportionate'
not
remaining
in
any
of
ofasthe
intimation
was
the
wish
guilty
the
interference
Court,
work
inquiry
above
fair
to
ofbut Co-operative
absent
cross-examine
and
offor discussion,
Tribunal
one
the
officer
or
proper?
by
9.
for one
Driver Nadu 11.
hundred
Badge This
State
unauthorizedly
No. issue
sixty Conclusions
Transport
14100 was
three and,disposed
days regarding
Corporation
and such, in an
hisby me
inquiry ),one
previous management.
for
of
'grossly
the
negligence
vide
Vellorewasnot
hundred
long
to
court
or &and,
order
record, sixty
It as
dated
Anr.
there is
guilty.
Iany
National
disproportionate'
periods Federation, Lucknow & ofOrs.
P.T. No. 2006 32188 II am
and
conducted
LLJhigher
witness
lack Thesatisfied
Tribunal,
which
260. ofpolice
inauthority.
or lead
interest
which affect
constable
that
by
asheevidence
theHe
canitself
thethe
case
admittedadmitted
behere inquiry
work
may
will
on was
arrived
that his
be
that
not
he ,was
own
at
wasshall
the
on the
be
by
three
3.
II)
submitted
such, asdays
4.5.2007
are hemanyisthat
with
with Whether
his
behalf.
inquiry
conducted
rely
sufficient.
employer
Management
not
looking
absentas the
trial
the only
effect
entitled
punishment
proceedings
He for
on
the
following
but
nine intoand
fairly
from
the 2000
only
the
entriesto
aworkman
contested
the
the II
criminal
any
materials
and
1.1.2003
stated LLJ
concerned
ofrelief.
Ex.WW1/M1
properly.
observations
absence period
of was
punishment 295
dismissal
that
the
isoffence.
on
to
ofentitled
claim
his
The
31.10.2003.
record
inemployee
The
acts
is
absence, issue
and
It
bears
lawful
paragraphs
necessitated issue
and
awardedto
should
was filed
isthe
shall
his
is
was
more
on and
accordingly,
Ita to1its
is
relief
justified
claimed
towritten
him5 :-of for
Nand Nagri Depot
14.
R.o Village reinstatement
departmental
be
signatures.
accordingly
not
required
Evenadjudged
takeotherwise
particularly,
account
Bopra any
of at his least
on
fresh
enquiry,
decided
In
with
when the
these
to
sicknessunauthorized
consequential
evidence
basis
bring
on
same in
circumstances,
asfacts
ofsome
favour
in
is
well the of
relation
absence
documents
benefits?
which
material
of to
unauthorized.
as sickness due
this
the
fromthe
on the duty
II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam,
that
statement
and
decided 2. On other hand, Ld. AR for
P.O.thehad
unauthorizedsame
intoadmitting
Pasenda favour
R.R. Dist.,
notice
which
submission
management
matter."
9.
record
oftake
may
Burdenhis leave
were
of
was
to
be
wife.
absence isthe
show
that
upheld.
A.P. Vs.and
In
ongiven
ofin
for
Heand
management
the
the
recent
theasbonafide
against
claimsto
workman
to
case.
workman
him.
how
employee
Presiding the times,
thatThis
thereasons
his
and
He
the
workmanthat
workman."
was
absence
whowas
against
admitted
there
he
absence
Officer, Labour
employed
of
done
claimswasself-sickness
the
wasiswas
appearsand
not
theworkman.
on
anwithto itand
that
Court III,
as
be
III)
without anythe
Distt. Ghazibad, Asreason
facts.
supplied
increasing
there
due management
per
basis
to cannot
In
terms
was
UP. iswith
of
fact
aevidence
compellingnosanctioned
of his
list
be
serious submitted
reference.
counsel
ofa misconduct
negligence of
witnesses
complaint
leave
this,
circumstances. that
argued and the
perhaps
and/or and asinquiry
before
and that list
toThe
lack
furnisheswell-
the
how
us
ofof a good
Hyderabad was & Ors. 2004 III LLJ 600
sickness
driver
ISSUE and
NO.2
incorrigible. ofthere
that
"1. : conducted
departmental
documents
meant
was his
interest
inquiry
His hewas
charge-sheeted
wife.
but
admitted
case noisestablish
toofficer wholly
Arguments fairly
isnegligence.
without
enquiry
However,
the
squarelyheld and
unsustainable,
facts
merit.
itfor
was onbyproperly
it
Habitual
him unauthorized
but
either
covered is
On not
placing
inquiry claimed
the
guilty in
one-sided
byhis
absencewhich
tendency
faceguilt.
relevant
issue
the and,absence
of
that is despite
authority from of
workman
We
or
it,
towards
a
ground for materials. factor
heard. notthe
thereafter,
termination do fair.which
not
a
inquiry
File he Clausehimself
denudation
On see
perused.
of was establishes
the
serviceany
appears
whole
(ii) admitted
distinction
of therefore
lack
the
Itofisofasubmitted
removed toPara his
legitimacy
of
have
from4 by
workman. interest
between
we guilt
been
ofIn
service are
Ld.this of
in
the regard I
III) Palaniappan
explanation
1.1.2003
5.
18. voluntarily.
toStanding
admission
satisfied
conducted
judicial
work.
In
31.10.2003.
to
The support
thereference
There R.M.
reasoning
that
charge-sheet,
ofoffairly The Vs. workmanTransport had LifeCommissioner,
full Insurance
13.
12.
Sardar
A N D Singh
AR
videIn
Sectionfor an
order
(Supra). workman Afacts
authority
Order
dated
11 his
the
Workman
cannot
ofiscase,appellant
answered
and
that and
shows
3.3.2004,
the workman
an
admission
process.
reported
the be
Industrialwas properly
inquiry
inquiry
thein
Ex.MW1/3.was
any
a Disputes
the
habitual
ashas
The properly
ofsweeping
above
was
seriousness
was placed
guilt.
reliefs
not
It absentee
in
held
isterms.
Act on by
record
provides and
Six
the
Chepauk,
10. fortified opportunity
When
adjudged
accordance
granted
conducted
attached
claimed
Itby isChennai
generalization. he by admitted
to
submitted
by to
guilty
with
the
fairly &
habitual
the defend
But Ors.
Courts
principles
of
the
and
workman
by Ld. 2006
himself
atabsence.
indiscipline
facts,
the
must of
properly
AR
thatII
same
he be LLJ
naturalbut
was
In
for
he seen
time
and 401
instead
in
justice
guilty.
clause
workman
did to
some
the(i)
the
not be that the
am an authority reported as Delhi Transport
management
was
his
copies
own
negligent
Corporation he
ofaffidavit
theThe
workman
thereof,
admit ofchose
departmental
in
logical
telltale
in
which
award
infacts
violation
the
Ex.WW1/A.
India
hisand to
features
be
workman
was
there
guilt Vs. admit
performance
speaktenable
sent enquiry
ofR.can
for
misguided
and to
is his
principles
had
within
the guilt
themselves.
be ofand
appropriate
full
noticed
requirement
Dhandapani,
he was his
into theof and,
opportunity
duties.
the
persuaded framework
natural
admittingand as
order
2006It such,
government.
of was
Itpressed
by 1justice.
is
the of
to
claimed
prior
LLJ
the aof SCIn329, File
that
the
as under:-
IV)
object of into there
clear
dismissal
defend
the
Balachennamma
charges law
permission.
inquiry
punishment was
service
casehimself
and no
which
ofOnly
levelled need
should
toindiscipline
A.and
arrive
towas for
innotsuch
(Smt.)
exception
against further
at
passed
incur
it conclusions
anda made
Vs. inquiry.
situation
himand
nothing
against justify
Managingon
is in It
court
in
less.
him
the is
the
case Director,
Corporation
The Management Vs.ofofficer M/sisDelhi
Sardar to admit
mend
Singh
Transport and,
the
(Supra), employee
as
Corporation,such, wherein his and not to
Hon'ble
inquiry,
the
be consigned
workman
K.S.R.T. submitted
hedepartmental
If
was
cannot
criticism
wasto
awas
promise
of Police
merited.
suddenrecord
held
sit
servedthat
that
Corporation, that
inillness.
guilty
Officer
room.
appeal
no there
proceedings.
the
with
Innot view
and
jurisdiction
over
remains
aBangalore
action
There was
charge-sheet
was,
of the the
also
would no
inquiry
thereafter,
absent
facts
of
conditions
ofbe
& haste
the
and
without
officer.
Anr.we Courts
taken an in
removed
are inquiry
are
2006 II from
was
Hon'ble
16.
Through itsadmission
Supreme
"Powers
Standing Court
Chairman-cum-Managing ofdoesof dealt
Labour leave amount
with Courts,
at the powers to admission
Tribunals
credit
Director court
of workman as
under
and inLLJ
section his
strangulate concluding
leave
satisfied
In
tends
againstthis
stipulated,
per
him.law. to and
regard,
degenerate
Ithim. that the also
the it
non-observance
isHowever, inquiry
is
appellant
It is submitted
submitted resorts
into
instructive
I that
do on
misplaced the
is
to
of
that oneto
whichpart
fast
the quote of
sympathy,
of as
those
inquiry
renders the
an a
DTC Head
Supreme 653Court National
Quarters, dealt Tribunals
with a case toofnot leave
give find
unauthorized was any
appropriatelyingmerit to the credit
absence of an
service.
conducted
6.
11A of the Itinquiry
fairly
demonstration
persons
generosity
10.
Onvitiated
isthis
authority
is
the
in
Act the
and
absence
and officer.
repeatedly
who
other
properly
Great
and
reported
by
submission
observed thinks
hand,
against
unauthorized".
such in My
private
claimed
emphasis
in
athat
asandwhich
false
paragraphsattention
Workmen
management
the
other
benevolence.
thethat he
action
promise was
people
had
the
admission
8 has
to of
has
full inbeen
laid
of
inquiry
on
10 M/s
as opportunity
examined
It
the
the isbyis was Sh.
under:- not
to
leave account
I.P. Estate, relief
New does innot
Delhi. case exonerate
of discharge him from or the dismissalobligation of of filing
of the workman invited
superior
world
essential
learned
Firestone
part
correct of to
have
atdutythe
as the
counsel
officer
to to
Tyre
per following
maintain
inquiry
time befor corrected
andthe theRubber
officer. authorities
indiscipline
therespondent-employee
and integrity Furtherthat Company :-is perhaps of more,fully itlegal of employee from workmen.-Where andlaw when observedand an he inproceeded this in paragraphs industrial regard, on leave dispute is9 to but11 leave as conducted defend Sanjay Dated : Saxena 16.5.2007 himself.
properly established. he reasoning on the the India at isas workman instructive absence one The MW1, Ltd.as list toworkman who and The who wasof being Vs. Thetime quote is documents the learned not has an impelled treated was placed legitimacy supplied held Management authority Single (O.P. and as by on leave guilty withlistSAINI) Judge his record reported ofof without list own witnesses by ofat his the AIR manner.
as the affidavit inquiry were leave application relating toappropriate the A W discharge A right Rthe anddismissal Dthis or in appropriate of a was
11. not I) the thoughts, conclusions. pay.
witnesses High Channabasappa granted 1973On AsSC theto was weCourt Sushil observed and list him.
1227, other They think was It wherein hand, Kumar PRESIDING that must is by of repeatedly Basappa Ld. emanate documents. Hon'bleARVs.
ends when Court Happali Union OFFICER, of for helogically justice inIt laid submitted Supremethe Vs. of State is LABOUR management that the under:- workman has been referred to a Labour not officer Ex.MW1/A,
15. supplied andof down wold from on to along Madhya submitted The "8. him.
the Authorities Court that the be State with basis observedItserved the legal Pradesh is of documents claimed India that of plea issubmitted Itworkman Mysore not findings his by the in & V. amounted findings COURT that not Harihar Ex.MW1/1 Ors.
necessaryinquiry paragraph bynot 1972 he and awarding Ld. was 1998to he NO.
LabGopal toARtheanot was 32 was go toVII, plea II IC judicial for (3)6.
allowed costs (1969) into removed AD notDELHI.
of workmanin to place 1,record as from are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National placed Tribunal on for any workman submitted was guilty against results (3) conducted detail that wherein under SLR absent the on must him.
regarding :- 274) the workman due dealing be facts fairly With byto (Delhi) seen theasickness on three-judge and was these 833 power with which toaproperly observations, be the oftheprincipled exercisable habitual Bench his case petitioner andof wife absentee. of we under this and in and a had He duly was
1. "9.
adjudication Workman When has and, filed anin the employee the instant course absents statement of the of claim documents service. not applicableIt was dismiss supportable Court, is on repeatedly accordancerecord.
charged even the appeal."
He claimed on and when with was those we analso that are principles order findings. the in not full inquiry given is P.for of agreement passed Expansive Venkatesan assistance is natural fair for and of proper (Supra), any evidence thetoeffect toSection constable, himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts who that of of duty,he proceedings, the the was hadevencase Act.
absent applied as The without the power unauthorizedly Labour leave sanctioned under Court, at any stage. applied for with judicial treating justice leave the aabsence and but mood observations the the ofenquiry same duty as mistaken leave may officerofasthe be without toset of learned and the aside. misplaced depot paySingle My after did punished directly in for said II) and leave Tribunal the Section unauthorized "When who courtfor admitted proper or very U/s High 11A absence National 10 long Court the (4A) has factum period, of Tribunal, of many has the of be Judicature been as his itIndustrial prima as exercised nine absence held the at not He times.
by facie case Disputes record has Act defence and,
7. as such, assistant.
Judge.
4.compassion passing I removal haveHe attention judiciously anheard has It made order of andatbeen the isthe the theof analso workman expense termination appeal arguments invited Industrial submitted totois ofof also the thethethat atfollowing Tribunal higher legitimacy lawful that the isCourt fororbar the authority and theand the justified havebut Hyderrabad As such, the from an shows may Plywood employer, submission duty, lack be, isof and BombayIndustries ofHon'ble interestthe Ld. satisfied finding ARVs.
in that of work. Pvt. Supreme Shirish workman thePara Ltd. misconduct Kumar 19(h) order (Supra) that ofleave was of and the invited my purpose application. workman of authorities Labour attention Observed is the theIt is plausible Standing process of Court, to inwas :-the maintaining repeatedly asnot paragraphs Rangrao Order the will "absentee conclusion as supplied submitted case 5 Patil quoted eventually maycorrect record"
flowing and & 7 with abovethat be,as Anr. is record of from under list lead arelates lenient expected thethe (1997) ofof toview may workman.
:- to It
(hereinafterdischarge to be referred or dismissal as the 'Act'). was not justified, it
:: 20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
987654321 :: (RC)
(RC)
Palaniappan lying
2. to and carefully kindly is submitted no his tobeuse. claim his gone taken "5.7.
witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service. I)credit Brief that mayR.M. Thereafter, through interfere andby facts repeated but beThethe(Supra) 6Angshuman negligence irreconcilable adduced its dismissed.
the It The and ofthe SCC charge punishment was award, same thewith file.
he and list learned 339 contended caseatserved was infrequent of wereof set the that the as Das situations not documents. duties of made aside counsel said case not adismissal granted decision onabsenceGupta demand enquiry, out was, the and regardingand from for basis is order as lack may denude of of Vs. This of in notice the the no of the be ofause. record workman set unauthorizedonaside the are appellant submission tribunal discharge management the interest present ruling judicial case, infurther has reported is the process or absence under Jutealso no Authority's relied contrary dismissal in jurisdiction Section ofwithout R.upon Corporation itsv. dignity, Dharam to 11-A work.
aobtaining the ruling andtoofrecord ofWhen authority, Quarter sit of the India direct this leaveas in Actan that some management and from workman absence the of other place Sessions; Court the judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in
3. on advance.
was anworkman punishment of when 1.7.2004 inemployee working work Jagdish Ex over absents AThe itparte and has of Ltd. the causes but isconduct bare may the as Prasad &respectability. not himself Virgo, satisfied decision todriver fromworkman be Ors.specified no perusal disruption awarded Saxena of use.
(1952 from with his 1998 of the that ofthe on IHence, as employees the (2) duty placev. LLJ thein punishment employer in such toState QBD management place the which without 526 of record this termsof
1) work ofduty.
in claim dismissal.
ofsince withthe In that Madhya of as and imposed sanctioned this revealsan the conditions, on case appellate record the by Bharat that isleave facts the nothing body.
the if wasmanagement (now any, the admitted not workmanThe Authority asbut Madhya it supplied interference thinks irresponsible inwasisthe can, wholly Pradesh), fit, topresent or on charge- him.
with give and the in 1994.
prayer
4.
8. My management
17. attention BalachenammaHe to set case, (AIR Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme used On MyIn has sheeted andaside the decision view findings to other been of a1061 P. work also pleadings plea videand the the ofThough invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads honestly, on SC record, inquiry can ofofthe facts charge-sheetisto of guilty to 1070).
hardly to under the issues no the the and come as indiscipline sincerely material employer parties, following workman ought well law are Section beto dated That as referred justified. as the aand following under not on conclusion termination authorities 11-A, degree case will including and faithfully record toto :- chaos.
be The above, is theissues of :-and andIwere Itfind had to is II) Guljar theSimgh workman Vs.13.11.2003, was Union absent of for four entered absolutely that justified the guilt Tribunal about charge Ex.MW1/1 award he of uptothe inever onlyof hasdistinguishable.
this workman any the when employee claimed the for lesser case record the powerconcerned.
was punishment before findings and being to misconduct There a the pleareduce arrived To habitually in inquiry are ofsupport lieu notof atthe by of India 2006remaining II LLJ 690. absent unblemished reinstate settled submitted that months thefor act but the trial that guilty course officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofrecord conclusion workman vide the management the unauthorizedly the entered certain or previousworkman order In of enquiry of in or before service. view duties punishment dismissal with instead. dated the general for record is ofthe constitutes Industrial are and oneconsequential running 16.12.2005 the The ofmanagement as Under observations an Governing perverse itmanagement hundred the exhibited has absenteeismtransport Tribunal serious circumstances the:-sixty to benefits English or that Standing belack about misconduct business orcharge-sheeted three was done the hetheof notincluding andand proved it ISSUE NO.1 law, the was Labour within interest Orders days : importance management of the not aduring case plea the unauthorized Court, supplied inmay parameters ofthe the is as guilty require:
ofthe with employer's guilty perioda case has leave departmental list ofcommencing to may of law.
ofcanbewitnesses victimisation, work.
be, unequivocal Possession behas treated enquiry to Ample from andgive of as III) Harinath Singh Yadav Vs. I) him against P. continuity causes the punishment vide Venkatesan great charge-sheet him. of and list unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience service 1.1.2003 the how imposed However,of labour is Court inwas itand to Vs. itself documents. support dated should Management produced practice upon full must not to13.11.2003 31.10.2003. in the back of be the ask himsufficient;
its or conducted. instant public before wages.
the is mala decision. neither person In of alleging also.
The case, fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate and The We has It cross- workman workman that isifhave power tosubmitted the hebe in wasAzhagiri remained absent that nor pleatoaof here examination, Provided has exercised each case be clear guilty in Administrative/ exercised that to accordance case show he in is of admitted any qualified as judiciously aLtd. person proceeding towith how the law."
that whotheChairman, and Court he under admitted concerned merenever must this useas Tamul Transport denied Corporation that he was(Now renamed absenting absent I) the harshworkman and unauthorizedly itemployees Whether not the complained 5. section of does hadthe facts enternot nowords the andinterest call In awereprovincial without enquiry against plea did view Labour for 'disproportionate' not remaining in any of ofasthe intimation was the wish guilty the interference Court, work inquiry above fair to ofbut Co-operative absent cross-examine and offor discussion, Tribunal one the officer or proper? by
9. for one Nadu 11.
hundred This State unauthorizedly issue sixty Conclusions Transport was three and,disposed days regarding Corporation and such, in an hisby me inquiry ),one previous management.
for of 'grossly the negligence vide Vellorewasnot hundred long to court or &and, order record, sixty It as dated Anr.
there is Federation, Lucknow & ofOrs. 2006periods guilty. Iany National disproportionate' II am and conducted LLJhigher witness lack Thesatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofpolice inauthority.
or lead interest which affect constable that by asheevidence theHe canitself thethe case admittedadmitted behere inquiry work may will on was arrived that his be that not he ,was own at wasshall the on the be by three
3. II) submitted such, are asdays 4.5.2007 hemanyisthat with with Whether his behalf. inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer Management not looking absentas the trial the only effect entitled punishment proceedings He for on the following but nine intoand fairly from the 2000 only the entriesto aworkman contested the the II criminal any materials and 1.1.2003 stated LLJ concerned ofrelief. Ex.WW1/M1 properly. observations absence period of was punishment 295 dismissal that the isoffence. on to ofentitled claim his The 31.10.2003. record inemployee The acts is absence, issue and It bears lawful paragraphs necessitated issue and awardedto should was filed isthe shall his is was more on and accordingly, Ita to 1its is relief justified claimed towritten him5 :-of for
14. reinstatement departmental be signatures. accordingly not required Evenadjudged takeotherwise particularly, account any of at his least on fresh enquiry, decided In with when the these to sicknessunauthorized consequential evidence basis bring on same in circumstances, asfacts ofsome favour in is well the of relation absence documents benefits? which material of to unauthorized. as sickness due this the fromthe on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, that statement and decided the hadsame unauthorized 2.
intoadmitting favour notice which submission management matter."
9.record oftake may Burdenhis leave were of was to be wife.
absence isthe On show that upheld. In ongiven ofin for Heand management the the recent theas claims other bonafide against to workman to case.
workman him.
how employee hand, times, thatThis thereasons his and He thethat workman."
was Ld. absence whowas against admitted there he absence AR employed of done claimswas for self-sickness the wasiswas and not theworkman.
on anwithto itand that as R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding the workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, be III) without anythe Asreason facts.
supplied increasing there due management per basis towascannot In termsiswith of fact aevidence compellingnosanctioned of his list be serious submitted reference.
counsel ofa misconduct negligence of witnesses complaint leave this, circumstances. that argued and the perhaps and/or and asinquiry before and that list toThe lack furnisheswell-
the how us ofof a good Hyderabad was & Ors. 2004 III LLJ 600 sickness driver ISSUE and NO.2 incorrigible. ofthere that "1. : conducted departmental documents meant was his interest inquiry His hewas charge-sheeted wife.
but admitted case noisestablish toofficer wholly Arguments fairly isnegligence. without enquiry However, the squarelyheld and unsustainable, facts merit.
itfor was onbyproperly it Habitual him unauthorized but either covered is On not placing inquiry claimed the guilty in one-sided byhis absencewhich tendency faceguilt. relevant issue the and,absence of that is despite authority from of workman We or it, towards a ground for materials. factor heard. notthe thereafter, termination do fair.which not a inquiry File he Clausehimself denudation On see perused. of was establishes the serviceany appears whole
(ii) admitted distinction of therefore lack the Itofisofasubmitted removed toPara his legitimacy of have from4 by workman. interest between we guilt been ofIn service are Ld.this of in the regard I III) Palaniappan explanation 1.1.2003
5.
18. voluntarily.
toStanding admission satisfied conducted judicial work.
In 31.10.2003. to The support thereference There R.M. reasoning that charge-sheet, ofoffairly The Vs. workmanTransport had LifeCommissioner, full Insurance
13.
12. Sardar Singh AR videIn Sectionfor an order (Supra). workman Afacts authority Order dated 11 his the Workman cannot ofiscase,appellant answered and that and shows 3.3.2004, the workman an admission process. reported the be Industrialwas properly inquiry inquiry thein Ex.MW1/3.was any a Disputes the habitual ashas The properly ofsweeping above was seriousness was placed guilt.
reliefs not It absentee in held isterms. Act on by record provides and Six the Chepauk,
10. fortified opportunity When adjudged accordance granted conducted attached claimed Itby isChennai generalization. he by admitted to submitted by to guilty with the fairly & habitual the defend But Ors. Courts principles of the and workman by Ld. 2006 himself atabsence.
indiscipline facts, the must of properly AR thatII same he be LLJ naturalbut was In for he seen time and 401 instead in justice guilty. clause workman did to some the(i) the not be that the am an authority reported as Delhi Transport management was his copies own negligent Corporation he ofaffidavit theThe workman thereof, admit ofchose departmental in logical telltale in which award infacts violation the Ex.WW1/A. India hisand to features be workman was there guilt Vs. admit performance speaktenable sent enquiry ofR.can for misguided and to is his principles had within the guilt themselves. be ofand appropriate full noticed requirement Dhandapani, he was his into theof and, opportunity duties. the persuaded framework natural admittingand as order 2006It such, government. of was Itpressed by 1justice.
is the of to claimed prior LLJ the aof SCIn329, File that the as under:-
IV) object of into there clear dismissal defend the Balachennamma charges law permission.
inquiry punishment was service casehimself and no which ofOnly levelled need should toindiscipline A.and arrive towas for innotsuch (Smt.) exception against further at passed incur it conclusions anda made Vs. inquiry.
situation himand nothing against justify Managingon is in It court in less.
him the is the case Director, Corporation Vs. officer Sardar is to admit mend Singh and, the (Supra), employee as such, wherein his and not to Hon'ble inquiry, the be consigned workman K.S.R.T. submitted hedepartmental If was cannot criticism wasto awas promise of Police merited. suddenrecord held sit servedthat that Corporation, that inillness. guilty Officer room.
appeal no there proceedings. the with Innot view and jurisdiction over remains aBangalore action There was charge-sheet was, of the the also would no inquiry thereafter, absent facts of conditions ofbe & haste the and without officer. Anr.we Courts taken an in removed are inquiry are 2006 II from was Hon'ble
16. admission Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofdoesof dealt Labour leave amount with Courts, at the powers to admission Tribunals credit court of workman as under and inLLJ section his strangulate concluding leave satisfied In tends againstthis stipulated, per him.law. to and regard, degenerate Ithim. that the also the it non-observance isHowever, inquiry is appellant It is submitted submitted resorts into instructive I that do on misplaced the is to of that oneto whichpart fast the quote of sympathy, of as those inquiry renders the an a Supreme 653Court National dealt Tribunals with a case toofnot leave give find unauthorized was any appropriatelyingmerit to the credit absence of an service. conducted
6. 11A of the Itinquiry fairly demonstration persons generosity 10. Onvitiated isthis authority is the in Act the and absence and officer. repeatedly who other properly Great and reported by submission observed thinks hand, against unauthorized".
such in My private claimed emphasis in athat asandwhich false paragraphsattention Workmen management the other benevolence. thethat he action promise was people had the admission 8 has to of has full inbeen laid of inquiry on 10 M/s as opportunity examined It the the isbyis was Sh.
under:- not to leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the dismissalobligation of of filing of the workman invited superior world essential learned Firestone part correct of to have atdutythe as the counsel officer to to Tyre per following maintain inquiry time befor corrected andthe theRubber officer. authorities indiscipline therespondent-employee and integrity Furtherthat Company :-is perhaps of more,fully itlegal of employee from workmen.-Where andlaw when observedand an he inproceeded this in paragraphs industrial regard, on leave dispute is9 to but11 leave as conducted defend Sanjay Dated : Saxena 16.5.2007 himself.
properly established. he reasoning on the the India at isas workman instructive absence one The MW1, Ltd.as list toworkman who and The who wasof being Vs. Thetime quote is documents the learned not has an impelled treated was placed legitimacy supplied held Management authority Single (O.P. and as by on leave guilty withlistSAINI) Judge his record reported ofof without list own witnesses by ofat his the AIR manner.
as the affidavit inquiry were leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of a was
11. not I) the thoughts, conclusions. pay.
witnesses High Channabasappa granted 1973On AsSC theto was weCourt Sushil observed and list him.
1227, other They think was It wherein hand, Kumar PRESIDING that must is right by the of repeatedly Basappa Ld. this emanate documents. Hon'bleARVs.
ends when Court Happali Union OFFICER, of for helogically justice inIt laid submitted Supremethe of State Vs.is LABOUR managementthat the under:- workman has been referred to a Labour not officer Ex.MW1/A,
15. supplied andof down wold from on to along Madhya submitted The "8. him.
the Authorities Court that the be State with basis observedItserved the legal Pradesh is of documents claimed India that of plea issubmitted Itworkman Mysore not findings his by the in & V. amounted findings COURT that not Harihar Ex.MW1/1 Ors.
necessaryinquiry paragraph bynot 1972 he and awarding Ld. was 1998to he NO.
LabGopal toARtheanot was 32 was go toVII, plea II IC judicial for (3)6.
allowed costs (1969) into removed AD notDELHI.
of workmanin to place 1,record as from are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National placed Tribunal on for any workman submitted was guilty against results (3) conducted SLR on must him. 274) the be facts fairly With byto (Delhi) seen asickness on three-judge andthese 833 which toaproperly observations, be oftheprincipled Bench petitioner andof of we this and in "9. absent detail that wherein under adjudication the regarding :- workman due dealing When and, the was power with anin theexercisable habitual employee the his coursecase wife absentee.
absents of and under a had the He duly was documents service.
not It
applicable was
dismiss supportable Court, is on repeatedly accordancerecord.
charged even the appeal."
He claimed on and when with was those we analso that are principles order findings. the in not full inquiry given is P.for of agreement passed Expansive Venkatesan assistance is natural fair for and of proper (Supra), any evidence thetoeffect toSection constable, himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts who that of of duty,he proceedings, the the was hadevencase Act.
absent applied as The without the power unauthorizedly Labour leave sanctioned under Court, at any stage. applied for with judicial treating justice leave the aabsence and but mood observations the the ofenquiry same duty as mistaken leave may officerofasthe be without toset of learned and the aside. misplaced depot paySingle My after did punished for said II) and leave Tribunal Section unauthorized "When who for admitted proper or very High 11A absence Nationallong Court the has factum period, ofmany has Tribunal, ofitbe Judicature been as his prima as exercised nine absence held the at not He times.
by facie case record has defence and,
7. as such, assistant.
Judge.
4.compassion passing I removal haveHe attention judiciously anheard has It made order of andatbeen the isthe the theof analso workman expense termination appeal arguments invited Industrial submitted totois ofof also the thethethat atfollowing Tribunal higher legitimacy lawful that the isCourt fororbar the authority and theand the justified havebut Hyderrabad As such, the from an shows may Plywood employer, submission duty, lack be, isof and BombayIndustries ofHon'ble interestthe Ld. satisfied finding ARVs.
in that of work. Pvt. Supreme Shirish workman thePara Ltd. misconduct Kumar 19(h) order (Supra) that ofleave was of and the invited my purpose application. workman of authorities Labour attention Observed is the theIt is plausible Standing process of Court, to inwas :-the maintaining repeatedly asnot paragraphs Rangrao Order the will "absentee conclusion as supplied submitted case 5 Patil quoted eventually maycorrect record"
flowing and & 7 with abovethat be,as Anr. is record of from under list lead arelates lenient expected thethe (1997) ofof toview may workman.
:- to It discharge or dismissal was not justified, it :: 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 98765432 :: (RC) (RC) Palaniappan lying to and carefully kindly is submitted no his tobe use.
claim his gone taken "5.
7.witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service. I)credit R.M. that may Thereafter, through interfere and byrepeated but beThethe(Supra) 6Angshuman negligence irreconcilable adduced its dismissed. the It The and the SCC charge punishment was award, same with file.
he and list learned 339 contended atserved was infrequent of wereof set the that the Das situations not documents. duties of aside counsel said case not adismissal granted decision onabsenceGupta demand enquiry, was, the and regardingand for basis is order as lack may denude of of Vs. This of in notice the the no of the be ofause. workman set unauthorizedonaside the appellant submission tribunal discharge management the interest present ruling judicial case, infurther has reported is the process or absence under Jutealso no Authority's relied contrary dismissal in jurisdiction Section ofwithout R.upon Corporation itsv. dignity, Dharam to 11-A work.
aobtaining the ruling andtoof record ofWhen authority, Quarter sit of the India direct this leaveas in Actan management and from some absence the of other place Sessions; Court the judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in
3. on advance.
anworkman punishment of when 1.7.2004 inemployee work Jagdish Ex over absents AThe itparte and has of Ltd. the causes but isconduct bare may the Prasad &respectability. not himself Virgo, satisfied decision toperusal fromworkman be Ors.specified no disruption awarded Saxena of use.
(1952 from his 1998 of the that ofthe on IHence, as employees (2) duty placev. LLJ thein punishment employer in such toState QBD place the which without 526 recordofthis terms of
1) work ofduty.
in claim dismissal.
ofwith the In that Madhya of as and imposed sanctioned this revealsanthe conditions, on case appellate record the by Bharat that isleave facts the nothing body.
the if wasmanagement (now any, the admitted not workmanThe Authority asbut Madhya it supplied interference thinks irresponsible inwasisthe can, wholly Pradesh), fit, to present or charge-on him.
with give and the in prayer
4.
8. My management
17. attention to set Balachenamma case, (AIR Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme On MyIn has sheeted and aside the decision view findings other been of a1061 P. also pleadings plea videand the the ofThough invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads on SC record, inquiry can ofofthe facts charge-sheetisto of guilty to 1070).
hardly to under the issues no the the and come as indiscipline material employer parties, following workman ought well law are Section beto dated That as referred justified. as the afollowing under not on conclusion termination authorities 11-A, degree case will including andrecord toto :- chaos.
be The above, is theissues of :-and Iwere Itfind to is II) Guljar theSimgh workman Vs.13.11.2003, was Union absent of for four entered absolutely that justified the guilt Tribunal about charge Ex.MW1/1 award he of uptothe inever onlyof hasdistinguishable.
this workman any the when employee claimed the for lesser case record the powerconcerned.
was punishment before findings and being to misconduct There a the pleareduce arrived To habitually in inquiry are of support lieu notof atthe by of India 2006remaining II LLJ 690. absent reinstate settled submitted that months theforact but the trial that guilty course officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion workman vide the management the unauthorizedly the entered certain or previousworkman order In enquiry of in or before view duties punishment dismissal with instead. dated the general for record is ofthe constitutes Industrial are and oneconsequential running 16.12.2005 the ofmanagement as Under observations an Governing perverse itthe hundred exhibited has absenteeismtransport Tribunal serious circumstances the:-sixty to benefits English or that Standing belack about misconduct business ordone three was the hetheof notincluding andand proved it ISSUE NO.1 law, the was Labour within interest Orders days : importance management of the not aduring case plea the unauthorized Court, supplied inmay parameters ofthe the is as guilty require:
ofthe with employer's guilty perioda case has leave departmental list ofcommencing to may of law.
ofcanbewitnesses victimisation, work.
be, unequivocal Possession behas treated enquiryto Ample from andgive of as III) Harinath Singh Yadav Vs. I) against P. continuity causes the Venkatesan punishment great him. of and list unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience service 1.1.2003 the how imposed of However,labour is Court inwas itand to Vs. itself documents. support should Management produced practice upon full must not toback 31.10.2003. in the of be the ask himsufficient;
its or conducted. instant public before wages.
the is mala decision. neither person In of also.
The case, fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate and The We has It cross- workman workman isifhave power tosubmitted thebe in was Azhagiri absentthat nor pleatoaof here examination, Provided has exercised each case be clear guilty in Administrative/ exercised that to accordance case show he in is of admitted any qualified as judiciously aLtd. person proceeding towith how the law."
that whotheChairman, and Court heunder admitted concerned mere never must this useas Tamul Transportdenied Corporation that he was(Now renamed absenting I) the harshworkman and itemployees Whether not the complained 5. section of does had the facts enternot nowords the andinterest call In awereprovincial enquiry against plea did view Labour for 'disproportionate' not remaining in any of ofasthe was the wish guilty the interference Court, work inquiry above fair to ofbut Co-operative absent cross-examine and ofinquiry discussion, Tribunal one the officer or proper? by
9. for one Nadu 11.
hundred This State unauthorizedly issue sixty Conclusions Transport was three and,disposed days regarding Corporation and such, in an hisby me ), management.
previous for of 'grossly the negligence vide Vellore wasnot long to court or &and, order record, It as dated Anr.
there is Federation, Lucknow & ofOrs. 2006periods guilty. Iany National disproportionate' II am and conducted higher LLJwitness lack Thesatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofpolice inauthority.
or lead interest which affect constable that by asheevidence theHe canitself thethe case admittedadmitted behere inquiry work may will on was arrived that his be that henot ,was own at wasshall the on the be by
3. II) submitted such, are ashemany 4.5.2007 isthat with Whether his behalf. inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer Management not looking absent the trial the as only entitled punishment proceedings He for on the following ninebut intoand fairly the 2000 only the entriesto aworkman contested the the II criminal any materials and stated LLJ concerned ofrelief. Ex.WW1/M1 properly. observations absence period of was punishment 295 dismissal that the isoffence. onofentitled claim his The record inemployee The acts is absence, issue and It bears lawful issue paragraphs necessitated and to awardedshould was filed isthe shall his is more onwas and accordingly, a to1its relief justified towritten him5 :-of for
14. reinstatement departmental be signatures. accordingly not required Even adjudged takeotherwise particularly, account any of at his least on fresh enquiry, decided In with when the these to sicknessunauthorized consequential evidence basis bring on same in circumstances, asfacts ofsome favour in is well the of relation absence documents benefits? which material of to unauthorized. as sickness due this the fromthe on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, statement and decided the same unauthorized 2.
in admitting favour notice which submission management matter."
9.record of may Burdenhis were of was to be wife.
absence isthe On show that upheld. In ongiven ofin Heand management the the recent theas claims other against to workman to case.
workman him.
how employee hand, times, thatThis thehis and He thethat workman."
was Ld. absence whowas against admitted there he absence AR employed done was claims the was iswasfor and not theworkman.
on anwithto it be that as R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding the workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, III) without anythe Asreason facts.
supplied there due management increasing per basis towascannot In termsiswith of fact aevidence compellingnosanctioned of his list be serious submitted reference.
counsel ofa misconduct negligence of witnesses complaint leave this, that argued circumstances. and the perhaps and/or and asinquiry before and that list toThe lack furnisheswell-
the how us ofof a good Hyderabad was & Ors. 2004 III LLJ 600 driver ISSUE and NO.2 incorrigible. that "1. : conducted departmental documents meant there was interest inquiry His hewas charge-sheeted but admitted case noisestablish toofficer wholly Arguments fairly isnegligence. without enquiry the squarelyheld and unsustainable, facts merit.
itfor was onbyproperly Habitual him unauthorized but either covered On not placing inquiry the guilty in one-sided byhis which absence tendency face guilt. relevant issue the and,absence of is authority from of workman We or it, towards a ground for materials. factor heard. not the thereafter, terminationdo fair.which not a inquiry File he Clausehimself denudation On see perused. of was establishes the serviceany appears whole
(ii) admitted distinction of therefore lack the Itofisofasubmitted removed toPara his legitimacy of have from4 by workman. interest between we guilt been ofIn service are Ld.this of in the regard I III) 1.1.2003
5.
18. Palaniappan voluntarily. toStanding admission satisfied conducted judicial work.
In 31.10.2003. The support reference There R.M. reasoning that ofoffairly The Vs. workmanTransport had LifeCommissioner, full Insurance
13.
12. Sardar Singh AR videIn for Section an order (Supra). workman Afacts authority Order dated 11 his the Workman cannot ofiscase,appellant answered and that and shows 3.3.2004, the workman admission process. reported the be Industrialwas properly inquiry thein Ex.MW1/3.was any a Disputes the habitual ashas Theproperly of sweeping above placed seriousness was guilt.
reliefs not It absentee in isterms. Act on record provides and Six Chepauk,
10. fortified opportunity When adjudged accordance granted conducted attached claimed Itby isChennai generalization. he by admitted to submitted by to guilty with the fairly & habitual the defend But Ors. Courts principles of the and workman by Ld. 2006 himself atabsence.
indiscipline facts, the must of properly AR thatII same he be LLJ naturalbut was In for he seen time and 401 instead in justice guilty. clause workman did to some the(i) the not be that the am an authority reported as Delhi Transport was his copies own negligent Corporation he ofaffidavit theThe workman thereof, admit chose departmental in logical telltale which award infacts of the Ex.WW1/A. India hisand to features be workman was there guilt Vs. admit performance speaktenable sent enquiry can for misguided R. and is hehis toDhandapani, had within the guilt themselves. be ofand appropriate full noticed requirement was his into the and, opportunity duties. the persuaded framework admittingand as order 2006It such, government. of was Itpressed by 1isthe of to claimed prior LLJ the aof SC 329, File that as under:-
IV) object of into there clear dismissal defend the Balachennamma charges law permission.
inquiry punishment was service case himself and no which ofOnly levelled need should toindiscipline A.and arrive towas for innotsuch (Smt.) exception against further at passed incur it conclusions anda made Vs. inquiry.
situation himand nothing against justify Managingon is in court inIt less.
him the is the case Director, Corporation Vs. officer Sardar is to admit mend Singh and, the (Supra), employee as such, wherein his and not to Hon'ble the be consigned workman K.S.R.T. submitted If was cannot criticism departmental to awas promise of Police merited. record sudden sit servedthat that Corporation, that inillness. Officer room.
appeal no there proceedings. the with Innot view jurisdiction over remains aBangalore action There was charge-sheet of the the also would no inquiry absent facts of conditions ofbe & haste the andwithout officer. Anr.we Courts taken an arein inquiry are 2006 II was Hon'ble
16. admission Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofdoesof dealt Labour leave amount with Courts, at the powers to admission Tribunals credit court of workman as under and inLLJ section his strangulate concluding leave satisfied In tends againstthis stipulated, per him.law. to and regard, degenerate Ithim. that the also the it non-observance isHowever, inquiry is appellant It is submitted submitted resorts into instructive I that do on misplaced the is to of that oneto whichpart fast the quote of sympathy, of as inquirythose renders the an a Supreme 653Court National dealt Tribunals with a case toofnot leave give find unauthorized was any appropriatelyingmerit to the credit absence of an conducted
6. 11A of the inquiry fairly demonstration persons generosity 10. Onvitiated authority is the in Act the andwho absence this and officer.
other properly Great and reported by submission observed thinks hand, against unauthorized".
such in My private emphasis in athat asandwhich false paragraphsattention Workmen management the other benevolence.
the he action promise was people had admission 8 has to ofofinbeen has full laid on 10 M/s as opportunity examined It the the isbyis under:- Sh.
to leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the dismissalobligation of of filing of the workman invited superior world essential learned Firestone part correct of to have atdutythe as the counsel officer to to Tyre following maintain inquiry per time befor corrected andthe theRubber officer. authorities indiscipline therespondent-employee and integrity Furtherthat Company :-is perhaps of more,fully itlegal of employee from workmen.-Where andlaw when observedand an he inproceeded this in paragraphs industrial regard, on leave dispute is9 to but11 leave as defend: Saxena Sanjay Dated 16.5.2007 himself.established.
he reasoning on the the India at isas workman instructive absence one The MW1, Ltd. toworkman who and The who was being Vs. Thetime quote isthe learned not has an impelled treated was placed legitimacy supplied held Management authority Single (O.P. as by on leave guilty with SAINI) Judge his record reported of without list own by ofat his the AIR manner.
as the affidavit inquiry leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of a was
11. not I) the thoughts, conclusions. pay.
witnesses High As Channabasappa granted 1973On SC theto was weCourt Sushil observed and list him.
1227, other They think was It wherein hand, Kumar PRESIDING that must is right by the of repeatedly Basappa Ld. this emanate documents. Hon'bleARVs.
ends when Court Happali Union OFFICER, of for he logically justice inIt laid submitted Supremethe of State Vs.is LABOUR managementthat the under:- workman has been referred to a Labour officer Ex.MW1/A,
15. andof down wold from on along Madhya submitted The "8. the Authorities Court that the be State with basis observed served the legal Pradesh of documents India that of plea issubmitted Itworkman Mysore not findings his by the in & V. amounted findings COURT not Harihar Ex.MW1/1 Ors.
necessaryinquiry paragraph bynot 1972 and awarding Ld. 1998to he NO.
LabGopal toARtheago was 32 was to VII, plea II IC judicial for (3) 6.
costs (1969) into removed AD notDELHI.
of workman 1,record as in from are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National placed Tribunal on for any workman submitted was guilty against results (3) conducted SLR on must him. 274) the be facts fairly With byto (Delhi) seen asickness on three-judge andthese 833 which toaproperly observations, be oftheprincipled Bench petitioner andof of we this and in "9. absent detail that wherein under the adjudication regarding :- workman due dealing When and, the was power with anin theexercisable habitual employee the his coursecase wife absentee.
absents of and under a had the He duly was service.
not It
applicable was
dismiss supportable Court, is repeatedly accordance charged even the appeal."
claimed on and when with those we an that are principles order findings.
the
in full
inquiry is P.for of agreement passed Expansive Venkatesan is natural fair for and proper (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection constable, himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts who that of of duty,he proceedings, the the was hadevencase Act.
absent applied as The without the power unauthorizedly Labour leave sanctioned under Court, at any stage. applied for with judicial treating justice leave the and but absence mood observations the the of same duty as mistaken leave may officerof the be without of learned setand the aside. misplaced depotpay Single My after did punished for said II) and leave Tribunal who Section unauthorized "When for a admitted proper or very High 11A absence National Court enquiry long the has factumashas period, of Tribunal, toJudicature many ofitbe been as his prima as exercised nine absence held the at not He times.
by facie case record has and, as such,
7. Judge.
4.compassion passing I removal haveduty, attention judiciously anheard has It order ofatbeen the isthe theofalso workman expense termination arguments invited submitted to is ofof also thethethat atfollowing legitimacy lawful that the isCourtfor bar the and theand justified have Hyderrabad As such, the from an shows may Plywood employer, submission lack isand be, of and Bombay of the Industries Hon'ble interestthe Ld. satisfied Industrial finding ARVs.
in that of work. Pvt. Supreme Shirish Tribunal workman thePara Ltd. misconductKumar 19(h) order or that the (Supra)ofleave was of and the invited workman of purpose my authorities application. Labour attention Observed is theIt is plausible process of Court, was :-the maintaining repeatedly to in not will supplied theassubmitted as"absentee case eventually maycorrect record" with 7be,that isrecord of list lead arelates lenient expected thethe of of to :-workman.view may It the Standing discharge orparagraphs conclusion Rangrao Order dismissal quoted5was Patil flowing and ¬ above asjustified, Anr. from under (1997) to it :: 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9876543 :: (RC) (RC) Palaniappan lying and carefully kindly is submitted his tobe claim his gone taken "5.
7.witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service. I)credit R.M. that maythrough interfere and byrepeated but beThethe(Supra) 6Angshuman negligence irreconcilable adduced its dismissed. the It The and the SCC charge punishment was award, same with file.
and list learned 339 contended atwere was in frequent of of set the that the Das situations not documents. duties of aside counsel said case not dismissal granted decision onabsenceGupta enquiry, was, the and regardingand for basis is order as lack may denude of of Vs. This of inthe the no of the be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized appellant submission tribunal discharge management the interest present ruling judicial case, infurther has reported is the process or absence under Jutealso no Authority's relied contrary dismissal in jurisdiction Section ofwithout R.upon Corporation its v. dignity, Dharam to11-A work.
aobtaining the ruling andtoof record ofWhen authority, Quarter sit of the Indiadirect this leave as in Actan and some from absence the of other place Sessions; Court the judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in
3. advance.
anworkman punishment of when inemployee work Jagdish Ex over absents AThe itparte and has of Ltd. the causes isconduct bare may the Prasad &respectability. not himself Virgo, satisfied decision fromworkman Ors.be specified perusal disruption awarded Saxena of (1952 from his 1998 of the that ofthe onas employees (2) duty v.
Iplace LLJ thein punishment employer in such toState QBD place the which without 526 ofterms record of
1) work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In that Madhya of as and imposed sanctioned this revealsanthe conditions, on case appellate record the by Bharat that isleave facts the nothing body.
the if wasmanagement (now any, the admitted not workmanThe Authority asbut Madhya it supplied interference thinks irresponsible inwasisthe can, wholly Pradesh), fit, to present oron charge- him.
withgive and thein
4.
8. My management
17. attention Balachenamma case, (AIR Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme On MyIn has sheeted and the decision view findings other been of a1061 P. also pleadings plea videand the ofThough invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads on SC record, can ofofthe facts charge-sheetisto of guilty to 1070).
hardly to under the issues no the the and come indiscipline material employer parties, following workman ought law are Section beto dated That as referred justified. the afollowing under not on conclusion authorities 11-A, degree case will including andrecord toto :- chaos.
be The above, is the issues of :- IwereItfind is II) Guljar theSimgh workman Vs.13.11.2003,was Union absent of for four entered absolutely that justified the guilt Tribunal about charge Ex.MW1/1 award he of uptothe inever onlyof hasdistinguishable.
this workman any the when employee claimed the for lesser case record the power concerned. was punishment before findings and being to misconduct There a the pleareduce arrived To habitually in inquiry are ofsupport lieu notof atthe by of India 2006remaining II LLJ 690. absent settled submitted that months theforacttrial but that guilty course officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion vide the management the unauthorizedly the entered certain or previousworkman order In enquiry of in or before view duties punishment dismissal instead. dated the general for record is ofthe constitutes Industrial are and onerunning 16.12.2005 the management of as Under observations an Governing perverse itthe hundred exhibited has transport absenteeismTribunal serious circumstances the :-sixty to English or that Standing belack about misconduct business ordone three was the hethe of andand not proved it ISSUE NO.1 law, the was Labour within interest Orders days : importance management of the not aduring case plea the unauthorized Court, supplied inmay parameters ofthe the is as guilty require:
ofthe with employer's guilty perioda case has leave departmental list ofcommencing to may of law.
ofcan bewitnesses victimisation, work.
be, unequivocal Possession behas treated enquiry to Ample from and give of as III) Harinath Singh Yadav Vs. I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. and list unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience 1.1.2003 the how imposed of However,labour is Court inwas itto Vs. itself documents. support should Management produced practice upon must not to of 31.10.2003. in the be the ask himsufficient;
its or conducted. instant public before the is mala decision. neither person In of also.
The case, fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate and The We has It cross- workman workman isifhave power to submitted thebe in was Azhagiri that absentnor pleatoaof here examination, Provided has exercised each case be clear guilty in Administrative/ exercised that to accordance case show he in is of admitted any qualified as judiciously aLtd.person proceeding towith how thelaw."
that whotheChairman, and Court heunder admitted concerned merenever must this useas Tamul Transportdenied Corporation that he was(Now renamed absenting I) the harshworkman and itemployees Whether not the complained 5. section of does had the facts enternot nowords the andinterest call In awereprovincial enquiry against plea did view Labour for'disproportionate' not remaining in any of ofasthe was the wish guilty the interference Court, work inquiry above fair to ofbut Co-operative absent cross-examine and ofinquiry discussion, Tribunal one the officer or proper? by
9. for one Nadu 11.
hundred This State unauthorizedly issue sixty Conclusions Transport was three and,disposed days regarding Corporation andsuch, in an hisby me ), management.
previous for of 'grossly the negligence vide Vellore not waslong to court or &and, order record, It as dated Anr.
there is Federation, Lucknow & ofOrs. 2006periods guilty. Iany National disproportionate' II am and conducted higher LLJwitness lack Thesatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofpolice inauthority.
or lead interest which affect constable that by asheevidence the He canitself thethe admittedcase admitted here be inquiry work may will on was arrived that his be that not he ,was own atshall the wason the be by II) submitted such, are ashemany 4.5.2007 isthat with Whether his behalf. inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer not looking absent the trial the as only entitled punishment proceedings He for on the following ninebut intoand fairly the 2000 only the entriesto aworkman the the II criminal any materials and stated LLJ concerned ofrelief. Ex.WW1/M1 properly. observations absence period of was punishment 295 dismissal that isoffence. onofentitled his The record inemployee The acts is absence, issue It bears lawful issue paragraphs necessitated and to awardedshould was isthe shall his is more onwas and accordingly, a to 1relief justified to him5 :-offor
14. reinstatement departmental be signatures. accordingly not required Even adjudged takeotherwise particularly, account any of at his least on fresh enquiry, decided In with when the these to sicknessunauthorized consequential evidence basis bring on same in circumstances, asfacts ofsome favour in is wellthe of relation absence documents benefits? which material of to unauthorized. as sickness due this the fromthe on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same unauthorized 2.
in favour notice which submission management matter."
9.record of may Burdenhis were of was to be wife.
absence isthe On show upheld. In ongiven ofin Heand management the recent theas claims other against to workman to case. him.
how employee hand, times, that This thehis and He that workman."
the Ld. absence whowas against admitted there heclaims absence doneAR was the was for iswas and not theworkman.
on an to be that R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding the workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, III) without anythe Asreason facts.
supplied there due management increasing per basis towascannot In termsiswith of fact aevidence compellingnosanctioned of his list be serious submitted reference.
counsel ofa misconduct negligence of witnesses complaint leave this, that argued circumstances. and the perhaps and/or and and asinquiry before that list toThe lack well- furnishesthe how us ofof a good Hyderabad was & no Ors. 2004 III LLJ 600 ISSUE NO.2 incorrigible. that "1.His : conducted departmental documents meant there interest inquiry hewas but admitted case isestablish toofficer wholly Arguments fairly isnegligence. without enquiry the squarelyheld and unsustainable, facts merit.
itwas on by properly Habitual him but either covered On not placing inquiry the guilty by in one-sided his which absence tendency faceguilt. relevant issue the and, of is authority of workman We or it, towards a ground for materials. factor heard. not the thereafter, terminationdo fair.which not a inquiry File he Clausehimself denudation On see perused. of was establishes the serviceany appears whole
(ii) admitted distinction of therefore lack the to Itofisofasubmitted removed Para his legitimacy of have from4 by workman. interest between we guilt been ofIn service are Ld.this of in the regard I III)
5.
18. Palaniappan voluntarily. admission satisfied conducted judicial work.
InThe support reference There R.M. reasoning that ofoffairly The Vs. workmanTransport had LifeCommissioner, full Insurance
13.
12. Sardar Singh AR videIn Standing for Section an order (Supra). workman Afacts authority Order dated 11 his the cannot ofiscase,appellant answered and that and shows 3.3.2004, the workman admission process. reported the beEx.MW1/3. Industrial properly in inquiry the was anyDisputes the ashas Theproperly of sweeping above placed seriousness was guilt.
reliefs not It in isterms. Act on record provides Six Chepauk,
10. fortified opportunity When adjudged accordance granted conducted attached claimed Itby isChennai generalization. he by admitted to submitted by to guilty with the fairly & habitual the defend But Ors. Courts principles of the and workman by Ld.2006 himself atabsence.
indiscipline facts, the must properlyof AR II same thathe be LLJ naturalbut Inwas for he seen time and 401 instead in justice guilty. clause workman did to some the(i) the not be that the am an authority reported as Delhi Transport his copies ownofaffidavit Corporation thehe The workman thereof, admit chose departmental in logical telltale which award of facts Ex.WW1/A. India hisand to features be workman speak was there guilt Vs. admit tenable sent enquiry can for misguided R. and is hehis toDhandapani, had within the was guilt themselves.
be and appropriate full noticed requirementinto the and, opportunity the framework admitting persuaded and as order 2006 It such, government. of was bypressed 1the of toaof SC 329, prior LLJ the File as under:-
IV) object of into there clear dismissal defend the Balachennamma charges law permission.
inquiry punishment was service case himself and no which ofOnly levelled need should toindiscipline A.and arrive towas for in notsuch (Smt.) exception against further at passed incur it conclusions anda made Vs. inquiry.
situation himand nothing against Managingjustify on is in court inIt less.
him the is the case Director, Corporation Vs. officer Sardar is to admit mend Singh and, the (Supra), employee as such,wherein his and not to Hon'ble be consigned K.S.R.T. submitted If was cannot criticism departmental to asudden promise of Police merited. record sitthatthat Corporation, that inillness. Officer room.
appeal no there proceedings. the Innot view jurisdiction over remains action There Bangalore was of the the also would no inquiry absent facts of conditions ofbe & haste the without officer. Anr.we Courts taken arein are II 2006 Hon'ble
16. admission Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofdoesof dealt Labour leave amount with Courts, at the powers to admission Tribunals credit court of workman as under and inLLJ section his strangulate concluding leave satisfied In tends againstthis stipulated, per him.law. to and regard, degenerate Ithim. that the also the it non-observance isHowever, inquiry is appellant It is submitted submitted resorts into instructive I that do on misplaced the is to of that one part to fast which the quote of sympathy, of as those inquiry renders the an a Supreme 653Court National dealt Tribunals with a case toofnot leave give find unauthorized was any lying appropriate merit to the credit absence of an
6. 11A of the inquiry demonstration persons generosity 10. Onvitiated authority is the in Act the who absence this and officer.
otherGreat and reported by submission observed thinks hand, against unauthorized".
such in My private emphasis athat asandfalseattention Workmen management paragraphsthe other benevolence. the action promisewas people admission 8 has to ofofinbeen has laid on 10 M/s as examined It the the isby is under:- Sh. leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the dismissalobligation of of filing of the workman invited superior world essential learned Firestone part correct of to have atdutythe as the counsel officer to to Tyre following maintain inquiry per time befor corrected andthe theRubber officer. authorities indiscipline the respondent-employee and integrity that Company Further :-is perhaps of more,fully itlegal of employee from workmen.-Where andlaw when observedand an he inproceeded this regard, in paragraphs industrial on leave dispute is9 to but11 leave as Sanjay: Saxena Dated 16.5.2007 established. he reasoning on the the India at isas workman instructive absence one MW1, Ltd. towho and The who was being Vs. Thetime quote isthe learned not has an impelled treatedplaced legitimacy supplied Management authority Single (O.P. as by on leave with SAINI) Judge his record reported of without list own ofat his the AIR manner.
as affidavit leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of a was
11. not I) the thoughts, conclusions. pay.
witnesses High As Channabasappa granted 1973On SC theto was weCourt Sushil observed and list him.
1227, other They think was It wherein hand, Kumar PRESIDING that must is right by the of repeatedly Basappa Ld. this documents. Hon'ble ARVs.
emanate ends when Court Happali Union OFFICER, of for he logically justice in It laid submitted Supremethe of State Vs.is LABOUR that the management under:- workman has been referred to a Labour Ex.MW1/A,
15. down wold from of along Madhya submitted The "8. Authorities Court that the be State with observed served the legal Pradesh documents India that of plea issubmitted Itworkman Mysore not findings by the in &V. amounted COURT not Harihar Ex.MW1/1 Ors.
inquiry necessary paragraph bynot 1972 and awarding Ld. 1998to NO.
LabGopal to ARthe 32 ago was to VII, plea II IC judicial for (3)6.
costs (1969) into AD notDELHI.
of workman 1,record as in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National placed Tribunal on for any workman submitted was guilty against results (3) conducted SLR on must him. 274) the be facts fairlyWith byto (Delhi) seen asickness on three-judge andthese 833 which toaproperly observations, be oftheprincipled Bench petitioner andof of we this and in "9. absent detail that wherein under the adjudication regarding :- workman due dealing When and, the was power with anin the the employee his exercisable habitual coursecase wife absentee.
absents of and under a had the He dulywas not applicable was dismiss supportable Court, accordance charged even the appeal."
on and when with those we an are principles order findings. in full is P.for of agreement passed Expansive Venkatesannatural for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection constable, himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts who that of of duty,he proceedings, the the was had even case Act.
absent applied as The without the power unauthorizedly Labour leave sanctioned under Court, at any stage. applied for with judicial treating justice leave the and but absence mood observations the the of same duty as mistaken leave may officerof the be without of learned setand the aside. misplaced depotpaySingle Myafter did punished for said II) and leave Tribunal who Section unauthorized "When for a admitted proper or very High 11A absence National Court enquiry long the has ashas factum period, Tribunal,of toJudicature many ofitbe been as hisprima as exercised nine absence held the at not He times.
by facie case recordhas
7. Judge.
4.compassion passing I employer, haveduty, attention judiciously anheard has It order atbeen isthe theofalso expense termination arguments invited submittedto ofofthethethat atfollowing legitimacy that the isCourt for bar the theand have Hyderrabad As such, the from an shows may Plywood submission lack isand be, of and Bombay of the Industries Hon'ble interestthe Ld. satisfied Industrial finding ARVs.
in that of work. Pvt. Supreme ShirishTribunal workman thePara Ltd. misconductKumar 19(h) order or that the (Supra)ofleave was of and the invited workman of purpose my authorities application. Labour attention Observed is theIt is plausible process of Court, was :-the maintaining repeatedly to in not will supplied theassubmitted as"absentee case eventually maycorrect record" with 7be,that isrecord of list lead arelates lenient expected thethe of of toview may :-workman. It the Standing discharge orparagraphs conclusion Rangrao Order dismissal 5was Patil quoted flowing and ¬ above asjustified, Anr. from under (1997) to it :: 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 987654 :: (RC) (RC) Palaniappan lying carefully kindly is submitted tobehis gone taken "5.
7.witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service. I)credit R.M. thatthrough interfere and byrepeated butThethe(Supra) 6Angshuman negligence irreconcilable adduced its the It The and the SCC charge punishment was award, same with file.
and list learned 339 contended atwere was in frequent of of set the that the Das situations not documents. duties of aside counsel said case not dismissal granted decision onabsenceGupta enquiry, was, the and and regarding for basis is order as lack may denude of of Vs. This of inthe the no of the be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized appellant submission tribunal discharge management the interest present ruling judicial case, infurther has reported is the process or absence under Jutealso no Authority's relied contrary dismissal in jurisdiction Section ofwithout R.upon Corporation its v. dignity, Dharam to11-A work.
aobtaining the ruling and toof record ofWhen authority, Quarter sit of the Indiadirect this leave as in Actan and some from absence the of other place Sessions; Court the judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in
3. advance.
anworkman punishment of when inemployee work Jagdish Ex over absents AThe itparte and has of Ltd. the causes isconduct bare may the Prasad &respectability. not himself Virgo, satisfied decision fromworkman Ors.be specified perusal disruption awarded Saxena of(1952 from his 1998 of the that ofthe onas employees (2) duty v.
Iplacein punishment LLJ the employer in such toState QBD place the which without 526 ofterms record of
1) work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In that Madhya of as and imposed sanctioned this revealsanthe conditions, on case appellate record the by Bharat that isleave facts the nothing body.
the if wasmanagement (now any, the admitted not workmanThe Authority asbut Madhya it supplied interference thinks irresponsible inwasisthe can, wholly Pradesh), fit, to present oron charge- him.
withgive and thein
8. My management
17. attention Balachenamma case, (AIR Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme MyIn has sheeted and decision view findings other been of a1061 P. also plea videand the ofThough invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads on SC record, can ofofthe facts charge-sheetisto guilty to 1070).
hardly to under the issues nothe and come indiscipline material employer following workman ought law are Section beto dated That as referred justified. the aunder not on conclusion authorities 11-A, degree case will including andrecord toto :- chaos.
be The above, is theof :- I Itfindis II) Guljar theSimgh workman Vs.13.11.2003, was Union absent of for four entered absolutely that justified the guilt Tribunal about charge Ex.MW1/1 award he of uptothe inever onlyof hasdistinguishable.
this workman any the when employee claimed the for lesser case record the power concerned. was punishment before findings and being to misconduct There a the plea reduce arrived To habitually in inquiry are ofsupport lieu notof atthe by of India 2006remaining II LLJ 690. absent submitted that monthsthe but actthat guilty course officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the management the unauthorizedly the entered certain or previousworkman In enquiry of in or before view duties punishment dismissal instead. the general for record is ofthe constitutes Industrial are and onerunning the management of as Under observations an Governing perverse itthe hundred exhibited has transport Tribunal absenteeism serious circumstances the to English sixty or that Standing belack about misconduct business ordone three was the hethe of andand not proved it ISSUE NO.1 law, the was Labour within interest Orders days : importance management of the not aduring case plea the unauthorized Court, supplied inmay parameters ofthe the is as guilty require:
ofthe with employer's guilty perioda case has leave departmental list ofcommencing to may of law.
ofcan bewitnesses victimisation, work.
be, unequivocal Possession behas treated enquiry to Ample from and give of as III) Harinath Singh Yadav Vs. I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. and list unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience 1.1.2003 the how imposed of However,labour is Court inwas itto Vs. itself documents. support should Management produced practice upon must not to of 31.10.2003. in the be the ask himsufficient;
its or conducted. instant public before the is mala decision. neither person In of also.
The case, fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate and The We has It cross- workman workman isifhave power to submitted thebe in was Azhagiri that nor absent pleatoaof here examination, Provided has exercised each case be clear guilty in Administrative/ exercised that to accordance case show he in is of admitted any qualified as judiciously aLtd.person proceeding towith how thelaw."
that whotheChairman, and Court heunder admitted concerned merenever must this useas Tamul Transportdenied Corporation that he was(Now renamed absenting the harshworkman and itemployees not the complained 5. section of does had the facts enternot nowords and theinterest call In awereprovincial against plea did view Labour for'disproportionate' not remaining in any of ofasthe the wish guilty the interference Court, work inquiry above to ofbut Co-operative absent cross-examine ofinquiry discussion, Tribunal one the officer or by
9. for one Nadu 11.
hundred This State unauthorizedly issue sixty Conclusions Transport was three and,disposed days regarding Corporation andsuch, in an hisby me ), management.
previous for of 'grossly the negligence vide Vellore not waslong to court or &and, order record, It as dated Anr.
thereis Federation, Lucknow & ofOrs. 2006periods guilty. Iany National disproportionate' II am and conducted higher LLJwitness lack Thesatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofpolice inauthority.
or lead interest which affect constable that by asheevidence the He canitself the the case admittedadmitted here be inquiry work may will on was arrived that his be that not he ,was own atshall the wason the be by submitted such, are ashemany 4.5.2007 isthat with his behalf. inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer not looking absent the trial the as only entitledpunishment proceedings He for on following ninebut intoand fairly the 2000 only the entriesto athethe II criminal any materials and stated LLJ concerned ofrelief. Ex.WW1/M1 properly. observations absence period of was punishment295 dismissal that offence.
on his
The
record
employee The ofnecessitated in acts is absence,issue It bears lawful issue and paragraphs awardedshould was ismore shall his is onwas and accordingly, a to 1 tojustified him5 :-for
14. departmental be signatures. accordingly not required Even adjudged takeotherwise particularly, account any of at his least on fresh enquiry, decided In when the these to sicknessunauthorized evidence basis bring on same in circumstances, asfacts ofsome favour in is wellthe of relation absence documents which material of to unauthorized. as sickness due this the fromthe on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same unauthorized 2.
in favour notice which submission management matter."
9.record of may Burdenhis were of was to be wife.
absence isthe On show upheld. In ongiven ofin Heand management the recent theas claims other against to workman to case. him.
how employee hand, times, thatThis thehis and He that workman."
the Ld. absence whowas against admitted there heclaims absence doneAR was the was for iswas and not theworkman.
on an to be that R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding the workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, without anythe facts.
supplied there due management increasing basis reason towascannot Incompelling iswith of fact aevidence nosanctioned his list serious submitted benegligence counsel ofa misconduct of witnesses complaint leave this, that argued circumstances. and the perhaps and/or and asinquiry before and that list toThe lack well- furnishesthe how us ofof a good Hyderabad was & no Ors. 2004 III LLJ 600 ISSUE NO.2 incorrigible. that "1.His : conducted departmental documents meant there interest inquiry hewas but admitted case isestablish toofficer wholly Arguments fairly isnegligence. without enquiry the squarelyheld and unsustainable, facts merit.
itwas on by properly Habitual him but either covered On not placing inquiry the guiltyby in one-sided his which absence tendency faceguilt. relevant issue the and, of is authority of workman We or it, towards a ground for materials. factor heard. not the thereafter,do termination fair.which not a inquiry File he Clausehimself denudation On see perused. of was establishes the serviceany appears whole
(ii) admitted distinction of therefore lack the to Itofisofasubmitted removed Para his legitimacy of have from4 by workman. interest between we guilt been ofIn service are Ld.this of in the regard I III)
18. Palaniappan voluntarily. admission satisfied conducted judicial work.
The reference There R.M. reasoning that of fairly The Vs. workmanTransport had LifeCommissioner, full Insurance
13.
12. Sardar Singh AR In Standing vide for Section an order (Supra). workman Afacts authority Order dated 11 the cannot ofisthat appellant answered andand shows 3.3.2004, the admission process. reported the beEx.MW1/3. Industrial properly in inquiry the was anyDisputes the asTheproperly of sweeping above seriousness was guilt.
reliefs not It in isterms. Act providesSix Chepauk,
10. fortified opportunity When adjudged accordance granted conducted attached claimed Itby isChennai generalization. he by admitted to submitted by to guilty with the fairly & habitual the defend But Ors. Courts principles of the and workman by Ld.2006 himself atabsence.
indiscipline facts, the must of properly AR II same thathe be LLJ naturalbut was In for he seen time and 401 instead in justice guilty. clause workman did to some the(i) the not be that the am an authority reported as Delhi Transport copies of the Corporation he The workman thereof, admit chose departmental in logical telltale which award of facts India hisand to features be workman speak was there guilt Vs. admit tenable sent enquiry can for misguided R. and is hehis toDhandapani, had within the guilt themselves.
be and appropriate full noticed requirement was into the and, opportunity the framework and admitting persuaded as order 2006It such, government. of was bypressed 1the of toaof SC 329, prior LLJ the File as under:-
IV) object of into there clear dismissal defend the Balachennamma charges law permission.
inquiry punishment was service case himself and no which ofOnly levelled need should toindiscipline A.and arrive towas for in notsuch (Smt.) exception against further at passed incur it conclusions anda made Vs. inquiry.
situation himand nothing against justify Managingon is in court inIt less.
him the is the case Director, Corporation Vs. officer Sardar is to admit mend Singh and, the (Supra), employee as such,wherein his and not to Hon'ble be consigned K.S.R.T. submitted If was cannot criticism departmental to asudden promise of Police merited. record sitthatthat Corporation, that inillness. Officer room.
appeal no there proceedings. the Innot view jurisdiction over remains action There Bangalore was ofthe the also would no inquiry absent facts of conditions ofbe & haste the without officer. Anr.we Courts taken arein are II 2006 Hon'ble
16. admission Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofdoesof dealt Labour leave amount with Courts, at the powers to admission Tribunals credit court of workman as under and inLLJ section his strangulate concluding leave satisfied In tends againstthis stipulated, per him.law. to and regard, degenerate Ithim. that the also the it non-observance isHowever, inquiry is appellant It is submitted submitted resorts into instructive I that do on misplacedthe is to of that one part to fast which the quote of sympathy, of as those inquiry renders the an a Supreme 653Court National dealt Tribunals with a case toofnot leave give find unauthorized was any lying appropriate merit to the credit absence of an 11A of the inquiry demonstration persons generosity 10. authority is the in Act vitiated absence this and officer.
who Great and reported by submission observed thinksagainst unauthorized".
such in My private emphasis athat asandfalseattention Workmen paragraphsthe other benevolence. the action promisewas people admission 8 has to ofofinbeen laid on 10 M/s as It the the isby is under:-
leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the dismissalobligation of of filing of the workman invited superior world essential learned Firestone part correct of to have atdutythe as perthe counsel officer to to Tyre following maintain inquiry time be forcorrected andthe theRubber officer. authorities indiscipline the respondent-employee and integrity that Company Further :-is perhaps of more,fullylegal of employee from workmen.-Where andlaw when observedandheinproceeded an this regard, in paragraphs industrial on leave it is9 to dispute but11leaveas Dated : 16.5.2007 established.
he reasoning on the the India at is workman instructive absence one Ltd. towho and The was being Vs. Thetime quote isthe learned notan impelled treatedlegitimacy supplied Single Management authority (O.P. as by leave with SAINI) Judge his reported of without list own ofat the AIR manner.
as leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of a was
11. not I) the thoughts, conclusions. pay.
witnesses High As Channabasappa granted 1973On SC theto was weCourt Sushil observed and list him.
1227, other They think was It wherein hand, Kumar PRESIDING that must is right by the of repeatedly Basappa Ld. this documents. Hon'ble ARVs.
emanate ends when Court Happali Union OFFICER, of for he logically justice in It laid submitted Supremethe of State Vs.is LABOUR that the management under:- workman has been referred to a Labour
15. down wold from of Madhya submitted The "8. Authorities Court that the be State observed served the legal Pradesh India that of plea issubmitted Itworkman Mysore not findings by the in &V. amounted COURT not Harihar Ors.
inquiry necessary paragraphbynot 1972 and awarding Ld. 1998to NO.
LabGopal to the AR agoVII, was 32 plea II IC judicial for (3) costs (1969) into AD notDELHI.
of workman 1,record as in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National placed Tribunal on for any workman submitted was guilty against results (3) conducted SLR on must him. 274) the be facts fairlyWith byto (Delhi) seen asickness on three-judge andthese 833 which toaproperly observations, be oftheprincipled Benchpetitioner andof of we this and in "9. absent detail that wherein under the adjudication regarding :- workman due dealing When and, the was power with anin the employee the his exercisable habitual coursecase wife absentee.
absents of and under a had the He duly was not applicable was dismiss supportable Court, accordance charged even the appeal."
on and when with those we an are principles order findings. in full is P.for of agreement passed Expansive natural Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection constable, himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts who that of of duty,he proceedings, the the was had even case Act.
absent applied as The without the power unauthorizedly Labour leave sanctioned under Court, at any stage. applied for with judicial treating justice leave the and but absence mood observations the the of same duty as mistaken leave may officerof the be without of learned setand the aside. misplaced depotpaySingle Myafter did punished for said II) and leave Tribunal who Section unauthorized "When for a admitted proper or very High 11A absence National Court enquiry long the has ashas factum period, of Tribunal, toJudicature many ofitbe been as hisprima as exercised nine absence held the at not He times.
by facie case record has Judge.
4.compassion passing attention judiciously anhas It order andatbeen isthe theofalso expense termination invited Industrialsubmitted to ofofthethethat Tribunal legitimacy that isCourt following foror the the the Hyderrabad As such, the from an shows may Plywood employer, submission duty, lack be, of is and BombayIndustries ofHon'ble interestthe Ld. satisfied finding ARVs.
in that of work. Pvt. Supreme Shirish workman thePara Ltd. misconduct Kumar 19(h) order (Supra) that ofleave was of and the invited workman of purpose my authorities application. Labour attention Observed is theIt is plausible process of Court, was :-the maintaining repeatedly to in not will supplied theassubmitted as"absentee case eventually correct may record" with 7be,that isrecord of list lead arelates lenient expected thethe of of toview may :-workman. It the Standing discharge orparagraphs conclusion Rangrao Order dismissal 5was Patil quoted flowing and ¬ above asjustified, Anr. from under (1997) to it :: 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 98765 :: (RC) (RC) Palaniappan lying kindly is submitted tobehistaken "5.
7.witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service. I)credit R.M. that interfere and byrepeated butThethe(Supra) 6Angshuman negligence irreconcilable adduced its the It The and SCC charge punishment was award, same with and list learned in339 contended atwere was frequent of of set the that the Das situations not documents. duties of aside counsel said case not dismissal granted decision onabsenceGupta enquiry, was, the and and regarding for basis is order as lack may denude of of Vs. This of inthe the no of the be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized appellant submission tribunal discharge management the interest present ruling judicial case, infurther has reported is the process or absence under Jutealso no Authority's relied contrary dismissal in jurisdiction Section ofwithout R.upon Corporation its v. dignity, Dharam to11-A work.
aobtaining the ruling and toof record ofWhen authority, Quarter sit of the Indiadirect this leave as in Actan and some from absence the of other place Sessions; Court the judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in
3. advance.
anworkman punishment of when inemployee work Jagdish Ex over absents AThe itparte and has of Ltd. the causes isconduct bare may the Prasad &respectability. not himself Virgo, satisfied decision fromworkman Ors.be specified perusal disruption awarded Saxena of (1952 from his 1998 of the that ofthe onas employees (2) duty v.
Iplacein punishment LLJ the employer in such toState QBD place the which without 526 ofterms record of
1) work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In that Madhya of as and imposed sanctioned this revealsanthe conditions, on case appellate record the by Bharat that isleave facts the nothing body.
the if wasmanagement (now any, the admitted not workmanThe Authority asbut Madhya it supplied interference thinks irresponsible inwasisthe can, wholly Pradesh), fit, topresent oron charge- him.
with give and thein My management
17. attention Balachenamma case, (AIR Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme In has sheeted and decision view other been of a1061 P. also plea videand the ofThough invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads SC record, can ofof facts charge-sheetisto guilty to 1070).
hardly to under the nothe and come indiscipline material employer following workman ought law Section beto dated That referred justified. the anot on conclusion authorities 11-A, degree case will including andrecord toto chaos.
be The above, is theof :- I Itfindis II) Guljar theSimgh workman Vs.13.11.2003, was Union absent of for four entered absolutely that justified the guilt Tribunal about charge Ex.MW1/1 award he of uptothe inever onlyof hasdistinguishable.
this workman any the when employee claimed the for lesser case record the power concerned. was punishment before findings and being to misconduct There a the plea reduce arrived To habitually in inquiry are ofsupport lieu notof atthe by of India 2006remaining II LLJ 690. absent submitted that monthsthe but actthat guilty course officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the management the unauthorizedly the entered certain or previousworkman In enquiry of in or before view duties punishment dismissal instead. the general for record is ofthe constitutes Industrial are and onerunning the management of as Under observations an Governing perverse itthe hundred exhibited has transport Tribunal absenteeism serious circumstances the to English sixty or that Standing belack about misconduct business ordone three was the hethe of andand not proved it law, the was management of Labour within interest Orders days the importance not aduring case plea the unauthorized Court, supplied inmay parameters ofthe the is as guilty require:
ofthe with employer's guilty perioda case has leave departmental list ofcommencing to may of law.
ofcan bewitnesses victimisation, work.
be, unequivocal Possession behas treated enquiry to Ample from andgive of as III) Harinath Singh Yadav Vs. I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. and list unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience 1.1.2003 the how imposed of However,labour is Court inwas itto Vs. itself documents. support should Management produced practice upon must not to of 31.10.2003. in the be the ask himsufficient;
its or conducted. instant public before the is mala decision. neither person In of also.
The case, fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate and The We has It cross- workman workman isifhave power to submitted thebe in was Azhagiri that nor absent pleatoaof here examination, Provided has exercised each case be clear guilty in Administrative/ exercised that to accordance case show he in is of admitted any qualified as judiciously aLtd.person proceeding towith how thelaw."
that whotheChairman, and Court he under admitted concerned merenever must this useas Tamul Transportdenied Corporation that he was(Now renamed absenting the harshworkman and itemployees not the complained 5. section of does had the facts enternot nowords and theinterest call In awereprovincial against plea did view Labour for'disproportionate' not remaining in any of ofasthe the wish guilty the interference Court, work inquiry above tobut Co-operative absent cross-examine ofinquiry discussion, Tribunal one the officer orby for one Nadu 11. State unauthorizedly hundred sixty Conclusions Transport three and, days regarding Corporation andsuch, in an his ), management.
previous for of 'grossly the negligence Vellore not waslong to court or &and, record, It as Anr.
thereis Federation, Lucknow & ofOrs. 2006periods guilty. Iany National disproportionate' II am and conducted higher LLJwitness lack Thesatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofpolice inauthority.
or lead interest which affect constable that by asheevidence the He canitself the the case admittedadmitted here be inquiry work may will on was arrived that his be that not he ,was own at shall the was onthe be by submitted such, are ashemany isthat his behalf. inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer not asthe looking absent trial only entitled nine punishment proceedings butHe for on intoand fairly the 2000 only the entriesto athethe absence II criminal any materials and stated LLJ concerned ofrelief. Ex.WW1/M1 properly. period of 295 dismissal that was offence. punishment on his The record employee The ofnecessitatedacts isissue absence, It bears lawful issue and awardedshould was ismore shall his is was onand accordingly, a to justified him for
14. departmental be signatures. accordingly not required Even adjudged takeotherwise particularly, account any of at his least on fresh enquiry, decided In when the these to sicknessunauthorized evidence basis bring on same in circumstances, asfacts ofsome favour in is wellthe of relation absence documents which material of to unauthorized. as sickness due this the fromthe on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same unauthorized 2.
in favour notice which submission management matter."
9.record of may Burdenhis were of was to be wife.
absence isthe On show upheld. In ongiven ofin Heand management the recent theas claims other against to workman to case. him.
how employee hand, times, thatThis thehis and He that workman."
the Ld. absence whowas against admitted there heclaims absence doneAR was the was iswasfor and not theworkman.
on an to be that R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding the workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, without anythe facts.
supplied there due management increasing basis reason towascannot Incompelling iswith of fact aevidence nosanctioned his list serious submitted benegligence counsel ofa misconduct of witnesses complaint leave this, that argued circumstances. and the perhaps and/or and asinquiry before andthat list toThe lack well- furnishes the how us ofof a good Hyderabad was & no Ors. 2004 III LLJ 600 ISSUE NO.2 incorrigible. that : conducted departmental documents meant there interest inquiry His hewas but admitted case isestablish toofficer wholly fairly isnegligence. without enquiry the squarelyheld and byproperly unsustainable, facts merit.
itwas Habitual him but either covered On not placing the guilty in one-sided byhis which absence tendency faceguilt. relevant the and, of is authority of workman We or it, towards a ground for materials. factor not the thereafter,do terminationhe fair.which not a inquiryClausehimself denudation On see of was establishes the serviceany appears whole
(ii) removed admitted distinction of therefore lack the to ofofa workman.Para his legitimacy of have interest between from4 service we guilt been are ofIn this of in the regard I III)
18. Palaniappan voluntarily. admission satisfied conducted judicial work.
The reference There R.M. reasoning that of fairly The Vs. workmanTransport had LifeCommissioner, Itfull Insurance
13.
12. Sardar Singh videIn Standing Section an order (Supra). Afacts authority Order dated 11 the cannot ofis the appellant answered andand shows 3.3.2004, admission process. reportedbeEx.MW1/3. Industrial properly thein was anyDisputes the asTheproperly ofsweeping above seriousnessguilt.
reliefsin isterms. Act providesSix Chepauk,
10. fortified opportunity When adjudged accordance granted attached claimed Itby isChennai generalization. he by admitted to submitted by to guilty with the & habitual the defend But Ors. Courts principles of workman bythe Ld.2006 himself atabsence.
indiscipline facts, the must of AR II same thathe LLJ natural be but was In for he seen time 401 instead in justice guilty. clause workman did to some the(i) not be that the am an authority reported as Delhi Transport copies of the Corporation he The thereof, admit chose departmental in logical telltale which award of facts India hisand to features be workman speak there guilt Vs. admit tenable sent enquiry R. and can for is hehis toDhandapani, had within the guilt themselves.
be and appropriate full noticed requirement was the and, opportunity the persuaded framework and as order It 2006 such, government. of was bypressed 1 priorof toaof SC 329, LLJ the File as under:-
IV) object of into there clear dismissal defend the Balachennamma law permission.
inquiry punishment was service case himself and no which ofOnly need should toindiscipline A.and arrive towas for in notsuch (Smt.) exception further at passed incur it conclusions anda made Vs. inquiry.
situation and nothing against justify Managing is in court inIt less.
him is the case Director, Corporation Vs. officer Sardar is to admit mend Singh and, the (Supra), employee as such,wherein his and not to Hon'ble be consigned submitted If was cannot criticism departmental of to asudden Police merited. record sit that that inillness. Officer room.
appeal there proceedings. the Innot view jurisdiction over remains was ofthe the no inquiry absent facts ofof thehaste without officer. weCourts arein Hon'ble
16. K.S.R.T. admission Supreme "Powers Standing Corporation, Court ofdoesof leaveThere dealt Labour Bangalore amount with Courts, at the also powers to conditions & admission Tribunals credit Anr.
court of workman are II 2006 as under and inLLJ section his strangulate concluding leave satisfied In tends this stipulated, per him.law. to and regard, degenerate that It isHowever, the also the it non-observance submitted inquiry is appellant resorts into instructive I that do on misplacedthe is to offind one part to fast which quote of sympathy, of as those renders the an a Supreme 653Court National dealt Tribunals with a case toofnot leave give unauthorized was anylying appropriate merit to the credit absence of an 11A of the inquiry demonstration persons generosity 10. authority the in Act absence this and officer.
who Great and reported submission observed thinksagainst unauthorized". in My private emphasis that asand attention Workmen paragraphsthe other benevolence. the action was people admission 8 has to ofofinbeen laid 10 M/s as It the isby is under:-
leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the obligation dismissal of of filing of the workman invited superior world essential learned Firestone correct to have atdutyas per the the counsel officer to to Tyre time following maintain be forcorrected andthe the authorities indiscipline the Rubber respondent-employee and integrity that Company :-is perhaps of fullylegal of employee from workmen.-Where andlaw when observedandheinproceeded an this regard, in paragraphs industrial on leave it is9 to dispute but11leaveas Dated : 16.5.2007 established.
he reasoning on the India at is instructive absence one Ltd. towho and The being Vs. Thetime quote isthe learned an impelled treatedlegitimacy Single Management authority (O.P. as by leave SAINI) Judge his reported of without own at the AIR manner.
as leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of a was
11. not I) the thoughts, conclusions. pay. High As Channabasappa granted 1973On SC theto was weCourt him.
1227, other Sushil observed They think was It Kumar PRESIDING that must Basappa wherein hand, is right by the this repeatedly Ld. Hon'ble ARVs.
emanate ends when Court Happali Union OFFICER, of for helogically justice in submitted Supremethe laid of State Vs. LABOUR that the management under:- workman has been referred to a Labour
15. down wold from of The "8. Madhya Authorities Court that the be State observed served the legal Pradesh of India plea issubmitted Itworkman Mysore not findings in by&V. amounted COURT not Harihar Ors.
necessary paragraphbynot 1972 and awarding Ld. 1998to NO.
LabGopal to the AR 32 agoVII, plea II IC judicial for (3) costs (1969) into AD DELHI.
of workman 1,record as in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National placed Tribunal on for any workman submitted was guilty against results (3) SLR on must him. 274) the be facts With byto (Delhi) seen asickness on three-judge these 833 which toa habitual observations, be oftheprincipled Benchpetitioner of wethis and "9. absent detail that wherein under the adjudication regarding :- workman due dealing When and, the was power with anin the employee the his exercisable coursecase wife absentee.
of absents of and under a had the He duly was not applicable was dismiss supportable Court, charged even the appeal."
on and when those we an are order findings. in full is P.for agreement passed Expansive Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection constable, himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts who that of of duty,he proceedings, the the was had even case Act.
absent applied as The without the power unauthorizedly Labour leave sanctioned under Court, at any stage. applied for with judicial treating leave the but absence mood observations the of duty as mistaken leave officerof the without of learned and the misplaced depotpaySingle after did punished for said II) and leave Tribunal who Section unauthorized "When for a admitted proper or very High 11A absence National Court enquiry long the has ashas factum period, of Tribunal, toJudicature many ofitbe been as hisprima as exercised nine absence held the at not He times.
by facie case record has Judge.
4.compassion passing judiciously an It order andatandisthe theofalso expense termination Industrialsubmitted ofof thethat Tribunal legitimacy that isCourt foror thethe the Hyderrabad As such, the from an shows may Plywood employer, submission duty, lack be, of is BombayIndustries ofHon'ble interestthe Ld. satisfied finding ARVs.
in that of work. Pvt. Supreme Shirish workman thePara Ltd. misconduct Kumar 19(h) order (Supra) that ofleave was of and the application. invited workman of purpose my Labourattention Observed is theIt is plausible process of Court, to inwas maintaining repeatedly the not as"absenteewill supplied theassubmitted case eventually maycorrect record" with 7be,that isrecord of list lead arelates lenient expected thethe of of toview may :-workman. It the Standing discharge orparagraphs conclusion Rangrao Order dismissal 5was Patil quoted flowing and ¬ above asjustified, Anr. from under (1997) to it :: 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9876 :: (RC) (RC) Palaniappan lying kindly is submitted tobehistaken "5.
7.witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service. credit R.M. that interfere and byrepeated butThethe(Supra) 6charge negligence irreconcilable adduced its the It The and SCC punishment was award, same with and list learned 339 contended atwere was in frequent of of set the that thesituations not documents. duties of aside counsel said case not dismissal granted decision onabsence enquiry, was, the and regardingand for basis is order as lack may denude of of This of inthe the no of the be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized appellant submission tribunal discharge management the interest present ruling judicial case, infurther has reported is the process or absence under also no Authority's relied contrary dismissal injurisdiction Section ofwithout R.uponits v. dignity, Dharam to11-A work.
aobtaining the ruling andtorecord ofWhen authority, Quarter sit of thedirect this leave as in Actan and some from absence the of other place Sessions; Court the judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in
3. advance.
anworkman punishment of when inemployee work Jagdish Ex over absents AThe itparte and has of the causes isconduct bare may the Prasad respectability. not himself Virgo, satisfied decision workman from be specified perusal disruption awarded Saxena of (1952 from his of the that oftheonas employees (2) duty placev. thein punishment employer in such toState QBD place the which without ofterms record of
1) work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In that Madhya of as and imposed sanctioned this revealsanthe conditions, on case appellate record the by Bharat that isleave facts thenothing body.
the if wasmanagement (now any, the admitted not workmanThe Authority asbut Madhya it supplied interference thinks irresponsible inwasisthe can, wholly Pradesh), fit, topresent oron charge- him.
withgive and thein My management
17. attention Balachenamma case, (AIR Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme In has sheeted and decision view other been of a1061 P. also plea videand the ofThough invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads SC record, can ofof facts charge-sheetisto guilty to 1070).
hardly to under the no the the and come indiscipline material employer following workman ought law Section beto dated workman That referred justified. the anoton conclusion authorities 11-A, degree case will 13.11.2003, was including andrecord toto chaos.
be The absentabove, is the of :- forI Itfour findis entered absolutely that justified the guilt Tribunal about charge Ex.MW1/1 award he of uptothe inever onlyof hasdistinguishable.
this workman any the when employee claimed the for lesser case record the power concerned. was punishment before findings and remaining being to misconduct There a thepleareduce arrived To habitually in inquiry are ofsupport lieu absent notof at the by of submitted that monthsthe but actthat guilty course officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the management the unauthorizedly the entered certain or previousworkman In enquiry of in or before view duties punishment dismissal instead. the general for record is of the constitutes Industrial are and onerunning the management of as Under observations an Governing perverse itthe hundred exhibited has transport Tribunal absenteeism serious circumstances the to English sixty or that Standing belack about misconduct business ordone three was the hethe of andand not proved it law, the was management of Labour within interest Orders days the importance not aduring case plea the unauthorized Court, supplied inmay parameters ofthe theis as guilty require:
ofthe with employer's guilty a case period has leave departmental list ofcommencing to may of law.
ofcan bewitnesses victimisation, work.
be, unequivocal Possession behas treated enquiry to Ample fromand give of as I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. and list unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience 1.1.2003 the how imposed of However,labour is Court inwas itto Vs. itself documents. support should Management produced practice upon must not to of 31.10.2003. in the be the ask him sufficient;
its or conducted. instant public before the is mala decision. neither person In of also.
The case, fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate and The We has It cross- workman workman isifhave power tosubmitted thebe in was Azhagirithat absentnor Transportpleatoaof here examination, Provided has exercised each denied case be clear guilty in exercised that to Corporation thataccordance case show he in is of admitted any qualified heas judiciously aLtd.person proceeding towith how was the (Now law."
that who the and Court he under admitted concerned renamedmere absenting never must this useas Tamul the harshworkman for one and Nadu itemployees not the complained 5. section of 11. hundred does had the facts Stateenter unauthorizedly not no sixty words and theinterest call In awereagainst plea did view Labour for Conclusions Transport three 'disproportionate' and, not remaining in any days of ofasthe the wish guilty the interference and Court, work inquiry above tobut regarding Corporation such, in absent cross-examine an hisofinquiry discussion, Tribunal one the officer orby ), management.
for of 'grossly the negligence previous Vellore not long was to court or &and, record, It as Anr.
there is 2006periods guilty. Iany National disproportionate' II am and conducted higher LLJwitness lack Thesatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofpolice inauthority.
or lead interest which affect constable that by asheevidence the He canitself the the case admittedadmitted here be inquiry work may will on was arrived that his be that not he of,was own atshall the on was the be by submitted such, are ashemany isthat his behalf. inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer not asthe looking absent trial only entitled nine punishment proceedings butHe for on intoand fairly theonly the entriesto athethe criminal any materials and absencestated concerned of relief. Ex.WW1/M1 period of properly.
dismissal that was offence. punishment on his The record employee The acts ofnecessitatedisissue absence, It bears lawful issue and awardedshould was ismore shall his is onwas and accordingly, a to justified him for
14. departmental be signatures. accordingly not required Even adjudged takeotherwise particularly, account any of at his least on fresh enquiry, decided In when the these to sicknessunauthorized evidence basis bring on same in circumstances, asfacts ofsome favour in is wellthe of relation absence documents which material of to unauthorized. as sickness due this the fromthe on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same in favour unauthorized notice which submission management matter."
9.record of may Burdenhis were of was to be wife.
absence isthe show upheld. In ongiven ofin Heand management the recent theas against to claimsworkman to case. him.
how employee times, thatThis thehis and He that workman." the absence whowas against admitted there heclaims absence done was the was iswas and not theworkman.
on an to be that R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding the workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, without anythere facts.
supplied increasing the due basis reason towascannot Incompelling iswith of fact aevidence nosanctioned his list benegligence serious counsel ofa misconduct of witnesses complaint leave this, argued circumstances. and perhaps and/or and before andthat as lack list toThe well-
the furnisheshow us ofof a good Hyderabad that departmental documents meant there & no Ors. 2004 III LLJ 600 ISSUE NO.2 incorrigible. : hewas interest inquiry His but admitted case isestablish toofficer wholly isnegligence. without enquiry the squarelyheld unsustainable, facts merit.
itwas byHabitual him but either covered On not placing the guilty one-sided byhis absence tendency faceguilt. relevant the and, of is authority of We or it, towards a ground for materials. factor not the thereafter,do terminationhe fair.which not a inquirydenudation On Clausesee of was establishes the service any appears whole
(ii) removed distinction of therefore lack the to ofofa workman.Para legitimacy of have interest between from4 service we beenare ofIn this of in the regard I III)
18. Palaniappan admission satisfied conducted judicial work.
The reference There R.M. reasoning that of fairly Vs. Transport LifeCommissioner,Insurance
13.
12. Sardar Singh videIn Standing Section an order (Supra). Afacts authority Order dated 11 the cannot ofis the appellant answered and and shows 3.3.2004, admission process. reportedbeEx.MW1/3. Industrial properly thein was anyDisputes the asTheproperly ofsweeping above seriousnessguilt.
reliefs in isterms. It Act provides Six Chepauk,
10. fortified When adjudged accordance granted attached claimed Itby isChennai generalization. he by admitted to submitted by guilty with the & habitual the But Ors.
Courts principles of workman bythe Ld.2006 atabsence.
indiscipline facts, the must of AR II same thathe be LLJ naturalwas In for he seen time 401 in justice guilty. clause workman did to some the(i) not be that the am an authority reported as Delhi Transport copies of the Corporation as under:- The departmental in logical telltale which award thereof, admit of facts India hisand features be workman speak there guilt tenable Vs.sent enquiry andR.can for toDhandapani, is he had within thethemselves.
be and appropriate full noticed requirement was the opportunity theframework persuaded andorder Itof 2006 government.
was bypressed of toaof SC 329, 1 prior LLJ the File IV) object of into clear dismissal defend the Balachennamma Corporation law permission. inquiry punishment service case himself Vs. officer and which ofOnly Sardar should to isindiscipline and A. to arrive towas innotsuch (Smt.) exception admitmend Singh at passed incur it conclusions anda made Vs. and, the situation (Supra), and nothing against justify Managing employee as is in such, court wherein in less.
him his the caseand Director, not to Hon'ble be consigned If was cannot criticism departmental of to asudden Police merited. record sit thatinillness.
Officer room.
appeal proceedings. the Innotview jurisdiction over remains ofthe the inquiry absent facts ofof the without officer. weCourts are Hon'ble
16. K.S.R.T. admission Supreme "Powers Standing Corporation, Court ofdoesof leaveThere dealt Labour Bangalore amount with Courts, at the also powers to conditions & admission Tribunals credit Anr.
court of workman are II 2006 as under and inLLJ section his strangulate leave satisfied In tends this stipulated, per him.law. to and regard, degenerate that It isHowever, also the it non-observance submitted is appellant resorts into instructive I that do misplacedis to offind one tofast which quote sympathy, of as those renders an a Supreme 653Court National dealt Tribunals with a case toofnot leave give unauthorized was anylying appropriate merit to the credit absence of an 11A of the demonstration persons generosity 10. authority the in Act absence this and who Great and reported submission observed thinksagainst unauthorized".private inemphasis that asand Workmen paragraphsthe other benevolence. the action was people admission 8 to oflaid ofinas 10 M/s It the isby is under:-
leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the obligation dismissal of of filing of the workman superior world essential learned Firestone correct have atdutycounsel officer to as per the to Tyre time maintain be forcorrected andthe the indiscipline the Rubber respondent-employee and integrity that Company is perhaps of fully legal of employee from workmen.-Where andlaw when andheinproceeded observed an this regard, in paragraphs industrial on leave it is9 to dispute but11leave as Dated : 16.5.2007 established.
he reasoning on the India at is instructive absence one Ltd. towho and Thebeing Vs. Thetime quote is the learned animpelled treatedlegitimacy Single Management authority (O.P. as byleave SAINI) Judge his reported of without own at the AIR manner.
as leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of LABOUR a was
11. not the thoughts, conclusions. pay. High As Channabasappa granted 1973On SC theto was weCourt him.
1227, other observed They think was ItPRESIDING that must Basappa wherein hand, is right by the this emanate repeatedly Ld. Hon'bleends ARwhenCourt OFFICER, Happali of for helogically justice in submitted Supremethe laid State Vs. that the management under:- workman has been referred to a Labour
15. down wold from of The "8. Madhya Authorities Court that the be State observed served the legal Pradesh plea ofissubmitted Itworkman Mysore not findings inbyV.amounted COURT not Harihar necessary paragraphbynot 1972 and awarding Ld.Lab to NO.
Gopal toARthe 32 agoVII, plea IC judicial for (3) costs (1969) into DELHI.
of workman 1,record as in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National placed Tribunal on for any workman submitted was guilty against results (3) SLR on must him. 274) the duebe facts With byto seen asickness on three-judge these which toa habitual observations, be oftheprincipled Bench petitioner of we this and "9. absent detail that wherein under the adjudication regarding :- workman dealing When and, the was power with an in the employee the his exercisable case course wife absentee.
of absents of and under a had the He dulywas not applicable was dismiss supportable Court, charged even the appeal."
on and when those we an are order findings. in full is P.for agreement passed Expansive Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection constable, himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts who that of of duty,he proceedings, the the was had even case Act.
absent applied as The without the power unauthorizedly Labour leave sanctioned under Court, at any stage. applied for with judicial treating leave said the but Sectionabsence mood observations the dutyof 11A as mistaken leave officerof has the without of learned to of and the misplaced depotpaySingle after did by not He record punished for and unauthorized "When leave Tribunal who for a admitted proper or very absence National enquiry long the ashas factum period, Tribunal, many itbe been as his prima as exercised nine absence held the times.
facie case has Judge.
4.compassion passing judiciously an It order andatisthe theof alsoexpense termination Industrialsubmitted ofof the that Tribunal legitimacy that isCourt fororthe the the Hyderrabad As such, the from an shows may Plywood employer, submission duty, lack be, ofand is Industries ofHon'ble interest the Ld. satisfied finding ARin that ofPvt.
Supreme work. workman Para the Ltd. misconduct 19(h) order (Supra) that ofleave was of and the application. invited workman of purpose my Labourattention Observed is theIt is plausible process of Court, to inwas maintaining repeatedly the not as"absenteewill supplied theassubmitted case eventually maycorrect record" with that 7be, isrecord of list lead arelates lenient expected thethe of of to view may :-workman. It the Standing discharge orparagraphs conclusion Order dismissal 5was quoted flowing and above not asjustified, from under toit :: 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 987 :: (RC) (RC) Palaniappan lying kindly is submitted tobehistaken "5.
7.witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service. credit R.M. that interfere andby repeated butThe (Supra) the negligence irreconcilable adduced its the It The and charge punishment was award, same with and list learned contended atwere was in frequent of of set the that thesituations not documents. duties of aside counsel said case not dismissal granted decision onabsence enquiry, was, the and regardingand for basis is order as lack may denude of of This of inthe the no of the be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized appellant submission tribunal discharge management the interest present ruling judicial case, infurther has reported is the process or absence under also no Authority's relied contrary dismissal injurisdiction Section ofwithout R.uponits v. dignity, Dharam to11-A work.
aobtaining the ruling andtorecord ofWhen authority, Quarter sit of thedirect this leave as in Actan and some from absence the of other place Sessions; Court the judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in advance.
workman an punishment of when inemployee work Jagdish Ex over absents The itparte and has ofthe causes isconduct may the Prasad respectability. not himself Virgo, satisfied decision workman from be specified disruption awarded Saxena of (1952 from his of the that the onas employees (2) duty placev.
in punishment employer in such toState QBD place the which without ofterms of
1) work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In thatan Madhya of as and imposed sanctioned this the conditions, on case appellate record the by Bharat isleave facts the nothing body.
if wasmanagement (now any, the admitted notThe Authority asbut Madhya it supplied interference thinks irresponsible in isthe can, wholly Pradesh), fit, topresent oronhim. withgive and the in My management
17. attention Balachenamma case, (AIR Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme In has and decision view other been of a1061 P. also plea and the of Though invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads SC record, can ofof facts isto guilty to 1070).
hardly to under the no the the and come indiscipline material employer following workman ought law workmanSection beto That referred justified. the anoton conclusion authorities 11-A, wasdegree case will including andrecord toto chaos.
be The above, absentis theof :-forI Itfour findis entered absolutely that justified the guilt Tribunal about charge award he of uptothe inever only of has distinguishable. this workman any the when employee claimed the lesser case record the power concerned. was punishment before findings and being to misconduct There a thepleareduce arrived To habitually in inquiry are ofsupport lieu not of at the by of submitted that monthsthe but actthat guilty course officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the the management the entered certain or previousworkman Inenquiry of in or before view duties punishment dismissal instead. the general record is of the constitutes Industrial are and running the management of as Under observations an Governing perverse ittheexhibited has transport Tribunal absenteeism serious circumstances theto English or that Standing belack about misconduct business ordone was the hethe of andand not proved it law, the was management of Labour within interest Orders theimportance not a case plea the unauthorized Court, supplied inmayparameters ofthe is as guilty require:
ofthe with employer's guilty a case has leave departmental list of to may of law.
ofcan bewitnesses victimisation, work.
be, unequivocal Possession behas treated enquiry to Ample and give of as I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. and list unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience the how imposed of labour However, is Court inwas Vs. ititself documents. support should in Management produced practice upon must not to of the be the ask him sufficient;
its or conducted. instant public before the is mala decision. neither person In case,of also.
fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate and The We has It cross- workman isifhave power tosubmitted thebe in was Azhagirithat absentnor Transportpleatoaof here examination, Provided has exercised each case be clear guilty in exercised that toaccordance Corporation case show he in is of admitted any qualified as judiciously aLtd.person proceeding towith how the (Now law."
that who the and Court he under admitted concerned renamedmerenever must this useas Tamul the harshworkman for one and Nadu itemployees not the complained 5. section of 11. hundred does had the facts enter State not no sixtywords and theinterest call In awere against plea did view Labour for Conclusions Transport three 'disproportionate' not remaining in any days of ofCorporation the the wish guilty the interference and Court, work inquiry above tobut regarding in absent cross-examine hisofdiscussion, Tribunal one the officer orby ), management.
for of 'grossly thenot negligence previous Vellore long to court or &and, record, It as Anr.
there is 2006periods guilty. Iany National disproportionate' II am and higher LLJwitness lack Thesatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofpolice authority.
or lead interest affect constable that by as evidence the He canitself the the case admitted here be inquiry work may will onwas arrived his be that not of,was own atshall the on the be by submitted such, are ashemany isthat his behalf. inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer not asthe looking trial only entitled nine punishment proceedings He for onand intofairly only the to entriesathethe criminal any materials and stated concerned of relief. Ex.WW1/M1 period of properly.
dismissal that offence. punishment onofhisThe record employee The acts isissue absence, It bears lawful issue and awardedshould was ismore shall his is was and accordingly, a to justified him for
14. departmental be signatures. accordingly not required Even adjudged takeotherwise particularly, any at least on fresh enquiry, decided In when the these to unauthorized evidence basis bring on same in circumstances, facts ofsome favour in isthe of relation absence documents which material of to unauthorized. due this the from the on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same in favour unauthorized notice which submission management matter."
9.record may Burden were of was to absencebeisthe show upheld. In ongiven ofinmanagement and the recent theasagainst to workman to case. him.
how employee times, This thehis and He that workman." absence whowas against admitted there heclaims done was the was isand not the workman. on an to be that R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding the workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, without anythere facts.
supplied increasing the basis reason cannot Iniswith was of fact aevidence sanctioned no his list benegligence serious counsel ofa misconduct of witnesses complaint leave this, argued and perhaps and/or and before andthat as lack list to well-
the furnisheshow us ofof a good Hyderabad that departmental documents meant there & no Ors. 2004 III LLJ 600 ISSUE NO.2 incorrigible. : hewas interest His but admitted caseto isestablish wholly isnegligence. without enquiry the unsustainable, squarely facts merit.
itwas byHabitual but either covered On notthe placing one-sided byhis absence tendency faceguilt. relevant the of is authority of We or it, towards a ground for materials. factor not the do fair. terminationClause which not a inquiry denudation Onsee establishes the of service any appears whole distinction of
(ii)ofofa workman. therefore lack the to legitimacy of have Para 4 ofIn thisinterest between we beenare of in the regard I III)
18. Palaniappan admission satisfied conducted judicial work.
The reference There R.M. reasoning that of fairly Vs. Transport LifeCommissioner, Insurance
13.
12. Sardar Singh In Standing Section an (Supra). 11 Afacts authority Order the cannot ofis the appellant answered and and shows admission process. reportedbeproperly Industrial thein was anyDisputes the asTheproperly ofsweeping above seriousnessguilt.
reliefs interms. Act provides Six Chepauk,
10. fortified When adjudged accordance granted attached Itby isChennai generalization.he by admitted to guilty submittedwith the & habitualBut Ors.
Courts principles of bythe Ld.2006 atabsence.
indiscipline facts, the must II ofsame AR he LLJ natural be was In for seen time 401 in justice guilty. clause workman to some the(i) be that the am an authority reported as Delhi Transport copies of the Corporation as under:- Theof departmental in logical telltale which award thereof, facts and Indiafeatures be workman speak there tenable Vs.sentenquiry R.can for toDhandapani, is had within thethemselves.
be and appropriate full noticed requirement the opportunity theframework andorder Itof 2006 government.
was pressed of toaof SC 329, 1 prior LLJ File IV) object of into clear dismissal defend the Balachennamma Corporation law permission. punishment service casehimself Vs. Sardar and which ofOnlyshould to isindiscipline A.and arrive towas innotsuch (Smt.) exception mend Singh at passed incurconclusions anda made Vs. the situation (Supra), and nothing against employee justify Managing is in court wherein in less.
him the caseand Director, not to Hon'ble be consigned If was cannot criticism departmental of to asudden Police merited. record sit thatinOfficer room.
appeal proceedings. the In view jurisdiction over remains ofthe the inquiry absent facts ofof the without officer. weCourts are Hon'ble
16. K.S.R.T. Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofillness.
Corporation, Labour of leaveThere dealt Bangalore with Courts, at the also powers conditions & Tribunals credit Anr.
court of workman are II 2006 under and inLLJ section his strangulate leave satisfied In tends this stipulated, him. dealt to and regard, degenerate that also the it non-observance It is Tribunals submitted is appellant resorts into instructivemisplacedis to one tofast of whichlying quote sympathy, of as those renders ana Supreme 653Court National with a casethat toof leavegive was unauthorized appropriate to the credit absence of an 11A of the demonstration persons generosity 10. authority the Act absence and who Great and reported observed thinksagainst private unauthorized". inemphasis that as Workmen paragraphsthe other benevolence.
action was people 8 to oflaid ofinas 10 M/s It the by is under:-
leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the obligation dismissal of of filing of the workman superior world essential learned Firestone have atdutycounsel officer to to Tyre the time maintain be forcorrected andthe the indiscipline the Rubber respondent-employee and integrity that Company is perhaps of fully legal of employee from workmen.-Where and when observed an he proceededin paragraphs industrial on leave dispute 9 to but11leave as Dated : 16.5.2007 established.
he reasoning on the India atis absence one Ltd. who and The being Vs. Thetimeis the learned impelled treatedlegitimacy Single Management (O.P. as byleave SAINI) Judge his of without own at the AIR manner. leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of LABOUR a was
11. not the thoughts, conclusions. pay.
granted 1973On High AsSC theto wasweCourt him.
1227, other observed They think was ItPRESIDING wherein hand, that must is right by the this emanate repeatedly Ld. Hon'bleends ARwhenCourt OFFICER, of for helogically justice Supremein submitted the laid State that the management under:- workman has been referred to a Labour
15. down wold from of "8. Madhya that Authorities Court the be observed served the legal Pradesh plea issubmitted Itworkman not findings inbyV.amounted COURT not Harihar necessary paragraphbynot and awarding Ld.to NO.
Gopal toARthe 32 agoVII, pleajudicial for (3) costs (1969) into DELHI.
of workman as in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National placed Tribunal on record for any workman submitted was guilty against results (3) SLR on must him.274) the duebe facts With byto seen asickness on three-judge these which toa habitual observations, be oftheprincipled Bench petitioner of wethis and had "9. absent detail that under the adjudication regarding :- workman When and, the was anpower in employee the his exercisable course wife absentee.
absents of and under the He dulywas not applicable was dismiss supportable Court, chargedeven the appeal."
on and when those we an are order findings.
in full
TheP.for is agreement
passed
Expansive Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts that of of duty,hethe proceedings, thehad even case Act. applied as without the power Labour leave sanctioned under Court,at any stage. applied for with judicial treating leave said thebut Sectionabsence mood observations the dutyof 11A as mistaken leave officerof has the without of learned to theand misplaced depotpaySingle after did by not He record punished for unauthorized "When leave Tribunal for a or proper very absence National enquiry long ashas period, Tribunal, many itbeas been prima as exercised nine held the times.
facie case has Judge.
4.compassion passing judiciously an It order atisthe of alsoexpense termination submitted ofof the that legitimacy that is for the the Hyderrabad As such, the an shows may Plywood employer, submissionlack isand be, ofand of the Industries interestthe Ld. satisfied Industrial finding ARin that ofPvt.
work. Tribunal workman Para the Ltd. misconduct 19(h) order or that the (Supra) ofleave was of and the application. invited workman of purpose my Labour the attention is It is plausible process of Court, towas maintaining repeatedly the not will as"absentee conclusion supplied theassubmitted case eventually maycorrect record"
flowing with thatis be, record of list lead arelates from lenient expected thethe of of toview may workman. It the Standing discharge or Orderdismissal quotedwas above not justified, to it :: 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 98 :: (RC) (RC) Palaniappan lying kindly is submitted tobehistaken
7.credit witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service. R.M. that interfere and byrepeated butThethe(Supra) negligence irreconcilable adduced its the The and charge punishment award, same with and list learned atwere was in frequent of of set the that thesituations not documents.
duties of aside counsel said case not dismissal granted decision absence enquiry, was, the andand regarding for is order as lack may denude of ofThis of inthe the nothe be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized appellant submission tribunal discharge management the interest present judicial case, infurther has is the process or absence under also no Authority's relied contrary dismissal jurisdiction Section ofwithout upon its dignity, to11-A work.
aobtaining the ruling and torecord ofWhen authority, sit of thedirect this leave as in Actan and some from absence the of other place Court the judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in advance.
workman an punishment of when inemployee work Jagdish over absents The itand has ofthe causes isconduct may the Prasad respectability. not himself satisfied decision workman from be specified disruption awarded Saxena ofhis from of the that the onas employees duty v.
placein punishment employer in such toState place the which without ofterms of work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In Madhya of as and imposed sanctioned this anthe conditions, case appellate record by Bharat isleave the nothing body.
if wasmanagement (now any, thenot The Authority asbut Madhya it supplied interference thinks irresponsible is can, wholly Pradesh), fit, to or onhim.
withgive and the in My management
17. attention Balachenamma (AIR Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme In has and decision view other been of P.1061 alsoand the ofThough invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads SC record, can of facts isto to 1070).
hardly to under the no thethe and come indiscipline material employer following workman law workmanSection beto That referred justified. the a on conclusion authorities 11-A, wasdegree case will including andrecord to chaos. be The above, absentis theof :-forI Itfour findis absolutely that justified the guilt Tribunal about charge award he of the inever onlyof hasdistinguishable. this workman anywhen employee claimed the lesser casethe power concerned. was punishment before findings being to misconduct There the reduce arrived To habitually in inquiry are support lieuof at the by of submitted that monthsthe but actthat course officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the the management the certain or previousworkman In enquiry of in or before view duties punishment dismissal the general record is of the constitutes Industrial are and running the management of as observations an Governing perverse ittheexhibited has transport Tribunal absenteeism serious circumstances to or that Standing belack about misconduct business ordone was the he the of andand not proved it thethe was management of Labour within interest Orders importance not case the unauthorized Court, supplied inmay parameters theis asrequire:
ofthe with employer's guilty a case leave departmental list of may of law.
ofcan witnesses victimisation, work.
be, Possession behas treated enquiry to Ample and give of as I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. and list unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience how imposed oflabour However, isin was Vs. ititself documents. support should in Management produced practice upon not to of the be the himsufficient;
its or conducted. instant public before is mala decision. neither In case,of also.
fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate The We has It cross- workman ishave power tosubmitted be in was Azhagirithat absentnor Transportheretoacase examination, Provided has exercised each be clear in exercised that toaccordance Corporation case show hein of admitted any as judiciously aLtd.person proceeding towith how(Now law."
that who the and he under admitted concerned renamedmerenever this useas Tamul the harshworkman for one and Nadu itemployees the complained 5. section of 11. hundred does had the facts State not no sixty words and theinterest call Inwere against did view Labour for Conclusions Transport three 'disproportionate' not remaining in any days ofCorporation the the wish the interference and Court, work inquiry above to his regarding in absent cross-examine ofdiscussion, Tribunal the officer orby ), management.
for 'grossly thelong negligence previous Vellore to court or &and, record, It as Anr.
there is 2006periods Iany National disproportionate' II am and higher LLJwitness lacksatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofauthority.
or lead interest affect that by as evidence the He canitself the the case admitted be inquiry work may will on his arrived be that not of,was own atshall the the be by submitted such, are ashemany isthat behalf. inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer not asthe looking only entitled nine punishment proceedings He on intoand fairly only the tothe entries the any materials and stated concerned of relief. Ex.WW1/M1 properly. period of dismissal that punishment onofhisThe record employee The acts isissue absence, bears lawful issue and awardedshouldismore shall his is was and accordingly, to justified him for
14. beEven signatures. accordingly not required adjudged takeotherwise particularly, any at least on fresh decided In when the these to unauthorized evidence basis bring same in circumstances, ofsome favour in istherelation absence documents material of to unauthorized. this the from the on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same in favour unauthorized which submission management matter."
9.record may Burden were of to absencebeisthe show upheld. Inof on inmanagement and the recent theasagainst workman to case.how employee times, This thehis and that workman." absence whowas against there heclaims donewas the was isand not workman. on an to be that R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding the workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, without anythere supplied increasing the basis reason cannot was iswith ofaevidence sanctioned no list benegligence serious ofa misconduct of witnesses complaint leave this,and/or and perhaps and andthat as lack list to well-
the how furnishesofof a good Hyderabad departmental documents meant there & no Ors. 2004 unsustainable, III LLJ 600the ISSUE NO.2 incorrigible. : was interest His but caseto isestablish wholly isnegligence. without enquiry squarely merit.
itwas byHabitual either covered On placing one-sided byabsence tendency face the of relevant is authority of or it, towards a ground for materials. factor notthe fair. terminationClause which a inquirydenudation On establishes of servicethe appears whole of
(ii)ofofa workman.therefore lack the to legitimacy of have interest Para 4 ofIn this we beenare of in the regard I III)
18. Palaniappan satisfied conducted judicial work.
The reference There R.M. reasoning that fairly Vs. Transport Commissioner, Life Insurance
13.
12. Sardar Singh In Standing Section an (Supra). Athe authority 11Order cannot ofis theappellant answered andand shows process.
reportedbeproperly Industrial thein was anyDisputes the asTheproperly sweeping above seriousness reliefs interms. Act provides Six Chepauk, adjudged accordance granted isChennai generalization. by toguilty with the &But Ors.
Courts principles ofatabsence.2006 indiscipline the must II ofsame LLJ natural be 401
10. fortified am attached Itby submitted an habitual authority by Ld. reported AR asseen In for time in justice clause workman Delhi to some the(i) be that the Transport copies of the Corporation as under:- departmental in logical telltale which award thereof, of Indiaand features be workman theretenable sent Vs. enquiry R.can toDhandapani, is had within the be and appropriate full noticed requirement the opportunity theframework andorder 2006 government.
of pressed of toof SC 329, 1 prior LLJ File IV) object of into dismissal defend the Balachennamma Corporation law permission. punishment service himself Vs. Sardar and which should to isA.
Only and arrive towas innotsuch (Smt.) exception mend Singh at passed incurconclusions a made Vs. the situation (Supra), and against justify Managing employee is in court in wherein him the caseand Director, not to Hon'ble be consigned was cannot criticism departmental of to merited.
record sudden sit thatinroom.appeal proceedings. the In view jurisdiction over ofthe the inquiry facts of of the officer.
weCourts are Hon'ble
16. K.S.R.T. Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofillness.
Corporation, ofLabour leaveThere dealt Bangalore with Courts, at the also powers conditions & Tribunals credit Anr.
court of workman are II 2006 under and inLLJ section his strangulate satisfied In tends this stipulated, him. dealt to regard, degenerate that the it non-observance It is Tribunals submitted is appellant into instructive misplacedis oneto of whichlying quote sympathy, of those rendersan Supreme 653Court National with a casethat toof leavegive was unauthorized appropriate to the credit absence of an 11A of the persons generosity 10. authority the Act absence and who Great andthinks reported observed private unauthorized". inemphasis that as Workmen paragraphs other benevolence.was people 8 to oflaid 10 inasM/s It the by is under:-
leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the obligation dismissal of of filing of the workman world essential learned Firestone have atdutycounsel to to Tyre the time maintain be forcorrected and the the Rubber respondent-employee and integrity that Company perhaps of legal of employee from workmen.-Where and when observed an he proceededin paragraphs industrial on leave dispute 9 to but11leave as Dated : 16.5.2007 he reasoning on the India atis absence one Ltd. who and being Vs. Thetimeis the impelled treatedlegitimacy Management (O.P. as byleave SAINI) his of without own the AIR manner. leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of LABOUR a was
11. not thoughts, conclusions. pay.
granted 1973On AsSC theto was we him.
1227, other observed They think ItPRESIDING wherein hand, that must is by the this emanate repeatedly Ld. Hon'bleends AR Court OFFICER, of for logically justice in submitted Supremethe State that the management under:- workman has been referred to a Labour
15. wold from of "8. Madhya Authorities Court the be observed served legal Pradesh issubmitted Itworkman not findings inbyV. COURT not Harihar necessary paragraphbynot and awardingNO.
Gopal Ld.placed to the AR 32 goVII, judicial for (3)costs (1969) into DELHI.
workman as in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National Tribunal on record for any workman submitted was against results (3) SLR must him. 274) duebe With byto seen asickness three-judge these toa habitual observations, be ofprincipled Bench of wethis and had "9. absent detail that under the adjudication regarding :- workman When and, the waspower an in employee the his exercisable course wife absentee.
absents of and under the He dulywas not applicable dismiss supportable Court, even the appeal."
on when those an order findings.
TheP.for is passed Expansive Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts that of of duty,hethe proceedings, thehad evencase Act. applied as without the power Labour leave sanctioned under Court,at any stage. applied for judicial treating leave said but Sectionabsence mood the dutyof 11A as mistaken leave officer has without of to theand misplaced depotpay after did by not He record punished for unauthorized "When leave Tribunal for a or proper very absence National enquiry long ashas period, Tribunal, many itbeas been prima as exercised nine held the times.
facie case has 4. compassion passing judiciously an It order atisthe of alsoexpense termination submitted ofof the that legitimacy thatis for the the Hyderrabad As such, the an shows may Plywood employer, submissionlack isand be, ofand of the Industries interestthe Ld. satisfied Industrial finding ARin that ofPvt.
work. Tribunal workman thePara Ltd. misconduct 19(h) order or that the (Supra) ofleave was of and the application. invited workman of purpose my Labour the attention is It is plausible process of Court, to was maintaining repeatedly the not will as"absentee conclusion supplied theassubmitted case eventually maycorrect record"
flowing with thatis be, record of list lead arelates from lenient expected thethe of of to view may workman. It the Standing discharge or Order dismissal quotedwas above not justified, to it :: 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9 :: (RC) (RC) Palaniappan lying kindly is submitted tobehistaken witnesses evidence may, to mutually habitual service.
credit R.M. that interfere and byrepeated butThethe(Supra) negligence irreconcilable adduced its the and charge punishment award, same with and listatwere was in frequent of of set the that the situations not documents. duties of aside said case not dismissal granted decision absence enquiry, was, the andandis regarding order aslack may denude of ofThis of inthe the nothe be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized submission tribunal discharge management the interest present judicial case, inhas is the process or absence under also no Authority's contrary dismissal jurisdiction Section ofwithout its dignity, to11-A work.
obtaining the and torecord ofWhen authority, sit thedirect leave as in Act an and some from absence the of other place theadvance. judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in workman an punishment of when work over absents employee The itand has ofthe causes isconduct may the respectability. not himself satisfied decision workman from be specified disruption awarded ofhis from of the that the onas employees duty placein punishment employer in such toplacethe which without ofterms work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In of an as and imposed sanctioned this the conditions, case appellate record byisleavethe nothing body.
if wasmanagement any, thenot The Authority asbut it supplied interference thinks irresponsible is can, wholly fit, to or onhim.
withgive and the in My management
17. attention Balachenamma Moreover, the such shockingly 10. basis extreme In has and decision view other been of P.also and the ofThough invited there disproportionate relief (Supra), the leads record, can of facts isto tohardly to under the no thethe and come indiscipline material employer following workman law workmanSection betoreferred justified. the a on conclusion authorities 11-A, wasdegree will including andrecord to chaos. be The above, absentthe of :- forI Itfour findis thataward justified the guilt Tribunal about charge he of the inever onlyof has this workman anywhen employee claimed the lesser casethe power concerned. was punishment before findings being to misconduct the reduce arrived To habitually in inquiry support lieuat the by of submitted that monthsthe but actthat officer in discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the the management the orworkman previous In enquiry of in or before view duties punishment dismissal theis record of the constitutes Industrial are and running the management of asan Governing perverse ittheexhibited has transport Tribunal absenteeism serious circumstances to or that Standing belack misconduct business ordone was the hethe of andand not proved it wasthenot management of Labour within interest Orders case the unauthorized Court, supplied inmay parameters theis asrequire:
the with employer's guiltycase leave list of mayof law.
ofcan witnesses victimisation, work.
be, Possession behas treatedto Ample and giveof as I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. listinconvenience unfair reasons power material misconduct. imposed oflabour However, isin was Vs.produced itself documents.
support in Management practice upon not to of the the himsufficient;
its orpublic instant before is mala decision. neither In case,of also.
fide"
the itPattukottai his Tribunal disproportionate The has It cross- workman ispower to submitted be in was Azhagiri that absentnor Transportexamination, Provided has exercised each tocasebe in exercised that toaccordance Corporation show hein admitted any as judiciously Ltd.proceeding towith how (Now law."
thatthe and he under concerned renamedmerenever this useas Tamul the harshworkman for one and Nadu itemployees complained 5. section of 11. hundred does had thesixty State not nowords theinterest call Inwere against view Labour for Conclusions Transport three 'disproportionate' remaining in any days ofCorporation the the the interference and Court, work inquiry above regarding in his absent ofdiscussion, Tribunal the officer orby ), management.
for 'grossly thelong negligence previous Vellore to court or &and, record, It as Anr.
there is 2006periods Iany National disproportionate' II am and higher LLJlacksatisfied Tribunal, which
260. ofauthority.
interest affect that by as the He canitself the the case admitted be inquiry work may will be arrived that not of,was atshall thethe be by submitted such, are ashemany isthat inquiry conducted rely sufficient. employer not asthe looking only entitled nine punishment proceedings on intoand fairly the tothe entries the any materials and concerned of relief. Ex.WW1/M1 properly. period of dismissal punishmentonof Therecord employee Theisissue absence, bears lawful issue andismore awarded shall his is was and accordingly, to justified him for
14. signatures.
accordingly not required Even takeotherwise particularly, any at least fresh decided In when these to unauthorized evidence bring same in circumstances, some favour in relation is absence material of to unauthorized. this the from the on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same in favour unauthorized submission management matter."
9.record may Burden of to absencebeisthe show upheld. Inofmanagement on and recent theasagainst workman to thehow employee times, thehis and that workman." absence who against there heclaimswas the was isnot workman.
on an to be that R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, without anythere supplied increasing the basis reason was iswith ofaevidence sanctioned no list serious of misconduct negligence of witnesses leave this,and/or and perhaps and andas lack list to well-
how furnishesofof a good Hyderabad documents meant there & no Ors. 2004 unsustainable, III LLJ 600theabsence ISSUE NO.2 incorrigible. : was interest His but caseto isestablish wholly isnegligence. without squarely merit.
it by Habitual covered On placing bytendency face the of relevant is authority of it, towards a ground for materials. factor the terminationClause which a inquirydenudationestablishes of service appears of lack the
(ii)ofofa workman. to legitimacy of have interest Para 4 ofIn this been of in the regard I III)
18.
13. Palaniappan conducted judicial work.
The In Standing reference an There R.M. reasoning fairly authority Order cannot is theVs.
answered andand shows Transport process. beproperly reported thein anyDisputes the asThe Commissioner, Life sweeping above seriousness reliefs Insurance interms. Six
12. Sardar Singh Section (Supra). 11 A of Industrial Act provides Chepauk, accordance granted isChennai generalization. by to withthe &But Ors.
Courts principles 2006 byatabsence.the must II ofsame LLJ natural be 401
10. fortified am attached Itby submitted an habitual authority Ld. reported AR asseen In for time justice clause workman Delhi to some be
(i) that the Transport copies of the Corporation as under:- in of logical telltale which award thereof, Indiaand features be workman theretenable sentR.
Vs. can toDhandapani, is had within the be appropriate full noticed requirement the opportunity framework and 2006 government.
of pressed toof SC 329, 1 prior LLJ File IV) object of into defend the Balachennamma Corporation law permission. punishment service himself Vs. Sardar and Only should to isA. and arrive innotsuch (Smt.) toexception mend Singh atincurconclusions a made Vs. the situation (Supra), and justify Managing employee is in court incase wherein the and Director, not to Hon'ble be consigned cannot criticism departmental of to record sudden sit thatinroom.appeal proceedings. the jurisdiction over the inquiry of of the officer.
Courts Hon'ble
16. K.S.R.T. Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofillness.
Corporation, ofLabour leaveThere dealt Bangalore withCourts, at the also powers conditions & Tribunals credit Anr.
court of workman are II 2006 under and inLLJ section his strangulate In tends this stipulated, him. dealt to regard, degenerate it non-observance It is Tribunals submitted is into instructive misplaced to of whichlying quote sympathy, rendersan Supreme 653Court National with a casethat of leave to give was unauthorized appropriate to the credit absence of an 11A of the generosity 10. authority the Act absence and Great and reported observed private unauthorized". inemphasis as Workmen paragraphs benevolence.was8 to oflaidas 10 M/s It under:-
byis leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the obligation dismissal of of filing of the workman essential learned Firestone atdutycounsel toTyre the time maintain for and the the Rubberrespondent-employee integrity Company of legal of employee from workmen.-Where and when observed an he proceeded in paragraphs industrial on leave dispute 9 to but11 leave as Dated : 16.5.2007 reasoning on the India at absence Ltd. and being Vs. Thetime the treated legitimacy Management (O.P. as leave SAINI) of without the AIR manner. leave application relating toappropriate the discharge anddismissal or in appropriate of LABOUR a was
11. not conclusions.
pay.
granted 1973On AsSC theto was him.
1227, other observed They ItPRESIDING wherein hand, must is by this emanate repeatedly Ld. Hon'ble AR Court OFFICER, for logically in submitted Supremethe State that the management under:- workman has been referred to a Labour
15. from of "8.
Court Madhya Authoritiesthe observed legal Pradesh issubmitted Itworkman not findings in V. COURT Harihar necessarybynot paragraph and NO.
Gopal Ld.placed to the AR 32 goVII, judicial for (3) (1969) into DELHI.
workman as in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunal or has National Tribunal on record for any workman submitted was results (3) SLR must 274) duebe byto seen asickness three-judge toa habitual be ofprincipled Bench of this and had "9. absent detail that under the adjudication regarding :- workman When and, the waspower an in employee the his exercisable course wife absentee.
absents of and under the He dulywas not applicable supportable Court, even on when those an order findings.
TheP.for is passed Expansive Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts that of of duty,hethe proceedings, thehad evencase Act. appliedas without the power Labour leave sanctioned under Court,at any stage. applied for judicial treating leave said but Sectionabsence mood the dutyof 11A as mistaken leave officer has without of to theand misplaced depotpay after did by not He record punished for unauthorized "When leave Tribunal for a or proper very absence National enquiry long ashas period, Tribunal, many itbeas been prima as exercised nine held the times.
facie case has compassion passing judiciously an order at the oftheexpense termination ofof the that legitimacy is for the Hyderrabad As such, the an shows may Plywood employer, submissionlack isand be, ofand of the Industries interestLd. satisfied Industrial finding AR in that ofPvt.
work. Tribunal workman thePara Ltd. misconduct 19(h) order or that the (Supra) ofleave was of and the application. invited of purpose my Labour the attention is It is plausible process of Court, to maintaining repeatedly the will theassubmitted as"absentee conclusion case eventually maycorrect record"
flowing thatis be, record of from lead arelates lenient expected thethe of to view may workman. It the Standing discharge or Order dismissal quoted was above not justified, to it : 20
10 :
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 (RC) Palaniappan lying kindly is submitted tobehistaken evidence may, to mutually habitual service.
credit R.M. that interfere and by repeated butThe (Supra) the negligence irreconcilable adduced its thecharge punishment award, same with andatwerewas in frequent of set the that thesituations not duties of aside said case not dismissal granted decision absence enquiry, was, the andandis regarding order aslack may denude of ofof inthe the nothe be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized tribunal discharge management the interest present judicialcase, inhastheprocess or absence under no Authority's dismissal jurisdiction Section ofwithout its dignity,11-A work.
obtaining and toofWhen authority, sit thedirect leave in Act an and some from absence the of other place judgment reinstatement only predictability employee in advance.
anpunishment of when work over absents employee The itand ofthe causes isconduct may the respectability. himself satisfied decision fromworkman bedisruption awarded ofhis from of the that the onemployees duty placein punishment employer inplace such the without ofterms work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In as anconditions, and imposed sanctioned this case appellatebyisleave the nothing body.
ifmanagement any, the The Authority asbut itinterference thinks irresponsible is can, wholly fit, or onwithgive and the in My management
17. attention Balachenamma theIn such shockingly 10. basis extreme has and decision view other been of P.also and the of Though invited disproportionate relief (Supra),the leads record, can of facts toto hardly to under the the the and come indiscipline employer following workman law workmanSection betoreferred justified. the a wasconclusion authorities 11-A, degree will including andto chaos.
be The above, absentthe of :- forI Itfour findis justified the guilt Tribunal about charge award of theinonly of hasthis workman anywhen employee the lesser casethe power concerned. was punishment findings being to misconduct reduce arrived To habitually insupport lieuat the by of submitted that monthsthe but actthat inthe discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the management the workman previous In enquiry of in orview duties punishment dismissal theis record ofconstitutes Industrial are and running theofas an Governing perverse ittheexhibited has transport Tribunal absenteeism serious circumstances to or Standing belack misconduct business ordone was thethe of andand not proved it management of Labour within interest Orders the case the unauthorized Court, inmayparameters theis asrequire:
the employer's guiltycase leave of may of law.
canvictimisation, work.
be, Possession behas treatedto Ample giveof as I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. unfair reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience imposed labour However, isin was Vs.produced itself support in Management practice upon not to of the the himsufficient;
its orpublic instantbefore is mala decision. neither case,of theitPattukottai also.
fide" Tribunal disproportionate The has It ispower workman to submitted be in was Azhagiri that absentnor TransportProvided has exercised each tocasebe in exercised that toaccordance Corporation show in any as judiciously proceeding towith Ltd. how (Now law."
the and under concerned mere this renamed useas Tamul the harshworkman for one and Nadu itemployees 5. section of 11. hundred does had thesixty State not nowords theinterest call Inwereview Labour for Conclusions Transport three 'disproportionate' remaining in any days ofCorporation thethe interference and Court, work above regarding in his absent ofdiscussion, Tribunal the orby ), management. for 'grossly thelong negligence previous Vellore court or &and, record, It as Anr.
there is 2006periods Iand National disproportionate' II amLLJ lacksatisfied Tribunal, which
260.of interest affect that by as the canitself the the case be inquiry work may will benot arrived of,was atshall the be by submitted such, are ashemany isthat conducted rely sufficient. employer not asthe looking only entitled nine punishment onand intofairly the tothe entries the any materials and concerned ofrelief. properly. period of dismissal punishmentonof Therecord employee Theisissue absence, lawful issue andismore awarded shall is was and accordingly, to justified him for
14. accordingly not required Even takeotherwise particularly, any at leastfresh decided when to unauthorized evidence bring same in some favour in relation is absence material of to unauthorized. the from the on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same in favour unauthorized management matter."
9.record may Burden of to be absence isthe show upheld. In management on and recent theasagainst to thehow employee times, thehis and workman."
absence who against thereclaims the was is that workman. on an to be R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, without anythere increasing the basis reason was isofaevidence sanctioned no serious negligence of leave misconductthis,and/or and perhaps andas lackto well-
how furnishes of a good Hyderabad meant there & no Ors. 2004 unsustainable, III LLJ 600 absence ISSUE NO.2 incorrigible. : was interest His but case wholly isnegligence. to establish squarely it by Habitual covered placing bytendency relevant is the authority of towards a ground for materials. factor terminationClause which a denudation establishes of service of lack the
(ii)ofofa workman. legitimacy of interest Para 4 ofIn this of in the regard I III)
18.
13. Palaniappan judicial work.
The In Standing reference an There R.M. reasoning authority Order cannot is theVs.
answered and shows Transport process. be the reported in anyDisputes the asThe Commissioner, Life sweeping above seriousness reliefs Insurance terms. Six
12. Sardar Singh Section (Supra). 11 A of Industrial Act provides Chepauk, granted isChennai generalization. by the &But Ors.
Courts 2006 byatabsence.the must IIbe same LLJ 401to
10. fortified am attached Itby to authority submitted an habitual Ld. reported AR asseen In for time clause workman Delhi some be
(i) that the Transport copies of the Corporation as under:- logical telltale award thereof, of and Indiafeatures be theretenable Vs.sentR. can toDhandapani, is within the be appropriate noticed requirement the frameworkand 2006 government.
of pressed 1 prior LLJ of SC 329, File IV) object of into Corporation the Balachennamma law permission. punishment serviceand Only Vs. Sardar should to isA.arrive notatincur (Smt.) toexception mend Singh conclusions Vs. the made (Supra), and justify is inincase Managing employee wherein the and Director, not to Hon'ble be consigned criticism departmental of to record sudden thatroom.
proceedings. the jurisdiction of of the Courts Hon'ble
16. K.S.R.T. Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofillness.
Corporation, Labour of leaveThere dealt Bangalore withCourts, at the also powers conditions & Tribunals credit Anr.
court of workman are II 2006 under and inLLJ section his strangulate tends stipulated, him. dealt to degenerate non-observance It is Tribunals submitted into misplacedof whichlying sympathy, renders Supreme 653Court National with a casethat toof leavegive was unauthorized appropriate to the credit absence of an 11A of the generosity 10. the Act absence and Great and private unauthorized". observed inemphasis paragraphs benevolence.was8 to laidasIt under:-
10 byis leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the obligation dismissal of of filing of the workman essential learned counsel atduty to the time maintainfor the the respondent-employee integrity of legal employee from workmen.-Where and when observed an he proceeded in paragraphs industrial on leave dispute 9 to but11 leave as Dated : 16.5.2007 reasoning on the absence andbeing thetreated legitimacy (O.P. as leave SAINI)of without the leave application relating at toappropriate the discharge time or anddismissal in appropriate a manner.
of LABOUR was
11. not conclusions.
pay.
granted As to was him. observed They ItPRESIDING must is On the other hand, Ld. AR for the management by this emanate repeatedly Court OFFICER, logically in submitted State that the under:- workman has been referred to a Labour
15. from of Madhya "8.Authoritiesthe Itlegal Pradesh issubmitted not findings V. COURT Harihar necessarybynot and NO.
Gopal Ld.placed to the AR goVII, judicial for (1969) into DELHI.
workman in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunalworkman or has National Tribunal on record for any workman submitted was results (3) SLR must274) duebe byto seen asickness three-judge toa habitual be ofprincipled Bench of this and had "9. absent detail that the adjudication regarding workman When and, the was anpower in employee the his exercisable course wife absentee.
absents of and under the He dulywas not applicable supportable Court, even onwhen those an order findings.
TheP.for is passed Expansive Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection himself adjudication thefrom 11A facts that of of duty,hethe proceedings, the had even case Act. appliedas without the power Labour leave sanctioned under Court,at any stage. applied for judicial treating leave absence mood but the dutyof as mistaken leave withoutand misplaced pay after punished for said leave Tribunal Section unauthorized for orvery Nationallongofficer 11A absence has as many period, Tribunal, of to the itbeas depot exercised nine prima as the did times.
facie case not Herecordhas compassion passing judiciously an order at the ofexpense termination ofTribunal the thatlegitimacy is for the Hyderrabad As such, the shows may lack isand Plywood submission be, of the Industries of interest Ld. satisfied Industrial AR in that ofPvt.
work. workman thePara Ltd. 19(h) order or that the (Supra) ofleave was of and the application. invited of purpose my Labour the attention It is process of Court, to maintaining repeatedly will theassubmitted theas"absentee case eventually maycorrect record" thatisof be, record lead arelates lenient expected the workman.of to view may It the Standing discharge or Order dismissal quoted was not above justified, to it : 20 11 :
12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 (RC) Palaniappan lying kindly is submitted tobehistaken may, to mutually habitual service.
credit R.M. that interfere and by repeated butThe (Supra) the negligence irreconcilable its thecharge punishment award, same with and were was in frequent of set that the situations not duties of aside case not dismissal granted decision absence was, the andandis regarding order aslack may denude of ofof inthe nothe be ofause. workman set aside unauthorized discharge management the interest present judicialcase, in the process or absence under Authority's dismissal Section ofwithout its dignity, 11-A work.
obtaining andofWhen authority, thedirect leave Act an and some from absence the ofother place reinstatement only predictability employee in advance.
anpunishment of when work absents employee The itand ofcauses isconduct may the respectability. himself satisfied fromworkman bedisruption awarded ofhis from the thaton employees duty placein punishment inplace such the without ofterms work ofduty. indismissal.
of the In and conditions, imposed sanctioned this casebyisleave the nothing ifmanagement any, the Authority asbut it thinks irresponsible is can, wholly fit, or ongive and the in My management
17. attention Balachenamma such shockingly 10. basis extreme In has andview other been of P.also and the of Though invited disproportionate relief (Supra),the leads record, can facts toto hardly to under the the and come indiscipline following workman law Section workmanbetoreferred justified. the a wasconclusion authorities 11-A, degree including andto chaos.
The above, absentthe of :-forI Itfour findis the award guilt Tribunal about charge of thein of hasthis workman anyemployee the lesser casepower concerned.
was punishment being to misconduct reduce To habitually insupport lieuthe by of submitted that monthsthe but actthat discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the management the workman previous In of in orview duties punishment dismissal theis record ofconstitutes Industrial and running theofas an Governing ittheexhibited has transport Tribunal serious absenteeism circumstances to Standing belack misconduct business ordone was the of andand not proved it of the case Labour within interest Orders the unauthorized Court, inmayparameters the asrequire:
the employer's case leave of may law.
canwork.
be, Possession behas treatedto Ample giveof as I) causes the against P. Venkatesan punishment great him. reasons power material misconduct.
inconvenience imposed However, isin was Vs.produced itself support in Management upon not to of the the himsufficient;
itspublic instantbefore isdecision.
neitherof theitPattukottai also.
case, Tribunal disproportionate The has It ispower workman to submitted be in was Azhagirithat absentnor TransportProvided has exercised each tocasebe in exercised that toaccordance Corporation show in any as judiciously proceeding towith Ltd. how (Now law."
the and under concerned mere this renamed useas Tamul the harshworkman for one and Nadu itemployees section ofdoes 11. hundred had thesixty State not nowords theinterest call were Labour for Conclusions Transport three 'disproportionate' remaining in anyCorporation days the interference andCourt, work regarding in hisabsent of Tribunal the orby ), management. for 'grossly thelong negligence previous Vellore court or &and, record, It as Anr.
there is 2006periods National disproportionate' and II LLJ lack260. Tribunal, which of interest affect by as the canitself the case be workmay will benot arrived of,atshall the be by submitted such, are ashemany isthat rely sufficient. employer not asthe looking only entitled nine punishment onand into the tothe entries the any materials concerned ofrelief. period of dismissal on punishment of The record employee isissue absence, lawful andismore awarded shall was and accordingly, to justified him for
14. notEven required takeotherwise particularly, any at leastfresh when to unauthorized evidence bring same some in relation is absence material unauthorized. tofromthe on the duty II) Hyderabad Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Nacharam, and decided the same in favour unauthorized matter."
9.record may Burden of to be absence isthe show upheld. In management on recent theas employee to thehow times, his andwho absence against thereclaims the was is that workman. on an to be R.R. Dist., A.P. Vs.and Presiding workman Officer, Labour appears Court III, without anythere increasing the basis reason was isofaevidence sanctioned no serious negligence of leave this,and/or misconduct and perhaps andas lackto well-
how furnishes of a good Hyderabad & no Ors. 2004 unsustainable, III LLJ 600 absence incorrigible.there meantHiswas interest but case wholly isnegligence. to establish squarely it by Habitual covered placing bytendency relevant is the authority of towards a ground for materials.factor terminationClause which a denudation establishes of service of lack the
(ii)ofofa workman. legitimacy of interest Para 4 ofIn this of in the regard I III)
18.
13. Palaniappan judicial work.
The In Standing reference an There R.M. reasoning authority Order cannotVs.
is theanswered and shows Transport process. be the reported in anyDisputes the asThe Commissioner, Life sweeping above seriousness reliefs Insurance terms. Six
12. Sardar Singh Section (Supra). 11 A of Industrial Act provides Chepauk, granted Chennai generalization. by the &But Ors.
Courts 2006 atabsence.
the mustsame IIbe LLJ 401to am fortified attachedby an to authority habitual reported asseen In time clause Delhi some be
(i) Transport copies of the Corporation as under:- logical telltale award thereof, of and Indiafeatures be theretenable Vs.sentR. can toDhandapani, is within the be appropriate noticed requirement the framework and 2006 government.
of pressed 1 prior LLJ of SC 329, File IV) Balachennammathe into law permission.serviceand Only should toA.arrive notatincur (Smt.) exception conclusions Vs. and made justify is inincase Managing theDirector, Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh (Supra), wherein Hon'ble be consigned criticism departmental of to record sudden thatroom.
proceedings. the jurisdiction ofof the Courts Hon'ble
16. K.S.R.T. Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofillness.
Corporation, Labour of leaveThere dealt Bangalore with Courts, at the also powers conditions & Tribunals credit Anr.
court of workman are II 2006 under and inLLJ section his 653Court tends to degenerate stipulated, non-observance of which renders into misplaced sympathy, Supreme National dealt Tribunals with a case to give appropriate of unauthorized absence of an 11A of the generosity 10. the Act absence and Great and private unauthorized". observed inemphasis paragraphs benevolence.
was 8 to laidasIt under:-
10 by is leave account relief doesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the obligation dismissal of of filing essentialcounsel learned to maintain for thethe respondent-employee integrity of legal employee from duty and observed workmen.-Where an in paragraphs industrial dispute 9 to 11 as Dated : 16.5.2007reasoning on the absence andbeing thetreated legitimacy(O.P. as leave SAINI)of without the leave applicationrelating at toappropriate the discharge time or anddismissal in appropriate a manner.
of LABOUR
11. conclusions.
pay. As was observed They PRESIDING must On the other hand, Ld. AR for the management by this emanate Court OFFICER, logically in State under:- workman has been referred to a judicial Labour
15. from of Madhya "8.Authoritiesthe It legal Pradesh issubmitted not findings V. COURT Harihar bynot necessary and NO.
Gopal Ld.placed to the AR goVII, for (1969) into DELHI.
workman in are In the instant Court, case, Tribunalworkman or has National Tribunal on record for any submitted that results (3) detail SLR the must274)be regarding workman bythe seen awasthree-judge power toa habitual be principled Bench exercisable of absentee. this and He was under "9.
adjudication When and, anin employee
the course absents
of the
not applicable supportable Court, Section to theeven 11A facts onwhen of of those the the an case Act. order findings.
as The P. ispowerpassed Expansive Venkatesan underfor (Supra), evidence tohimself the effect adjudication from that duty,he had proceedings, evenapplied without the forsanctioned Labour leave Court,at any stage. judicial treating said absence mood Section of 11A as mistaken leave without and misplaced pay after punished for unauthorized leave Tribunal for orvery Nationallong has absence as many period, Tribunal, to itbeas prima as exercised nine the times.
facie case He has compassion passing judiciously an order at the ofexpense termination ofTribunal thethatlegitimacy is for the Hyderrabad As such, the shows may lack isand Plywood submission be, of the Industries of interest Ld. satisfied Industrial AR in that ofPvt.
work. workman theParaLtd. 19(h) order or that the (Supra) ofleave was of and invited my Labourof purpose the attention process of Court, to the maintaining will as"absentee theascase eventually maycorrect record" record lead be, isofrelates expected of to the workman. It the Standing discharge or Order dismissal quoted was not above justified, to it : 20 12 :
13 14 15 16 17 1819 (RC) Palaniappan lying is submitted to hisservice.
may, to R.M. mutually habitual credit that interfere by repeated butThe (Supra) negligence irreconcilable its thecharge award, same with and were was in frequent of set that the situations not duties aside case not granted decision absence was, the andandis regarding order aslack denude of ofof inthe nothe ofause. workman unauthorized discharge management the interest present judicial case, in the process or absence under Authority's dismissal Section ofwithout its dignity, 11-A work.
obtaining andofWhen authority, thedirect leave Act an from the of absence place reinstatement only predictability employee in advance.
an ofwhen work absents employee The itand ofcauses isconduct the respectability. himself satisfied workman from disruption ofhis from the thaton employees duty placepunishment in the such without ofterms work in of the duty. In and conditions, imposed sanctioned this casebyisleave the nothing ifmanagement any, the Authority asbut it thinks irresponsible is can, wholly fit, or ongive and the in management
17. Balachenamma such shockingly 10. basis extreme Inandview other of P.also and the of Though disproportionate relief (Supra),the leads record, can facts tohardly to under thethe and come indiscipline workman law Section betoreferred workman justified.
the a wasconclusion 11-A, degree including andto chaos.
The above, absentthe of forI Itfour findis the award guilt Tribunal about charge of the in of hasthis workman anyemployee the lesser casepower concerned.
was punishment being to misconduct reduce To habitually insupport lieuthe by of submitted that monthsthe but actthat discharge its quantum negligent absence. ofconclusion the management the workman previousIn of in orview duties punishment dismissal theis record ofconstitutes Industrial and running theofas an Governing itthe exhibited has transport Tribunal serious absenteeism circumstances to Standing belack misconduct business ordone was the of andand not proved it of the case Labour within interest Orders the unauthorized Court, inmayparameters the asrequire:
the employer's case leave of maylaw.
canwork.
be, Possession behas treatedto Ample giveof as causes the punishment against great him. reasons power material misconduct. inconvenience imposed However,isin was itself support produced upon in not to of the the himsufficient;
itspublic instantbefore isdecision.
neither also.
case,theitworkman Tribunal disproportionate The has It ispower to submitted be in was absentthat nor Provided has exercised each tocase be in exercised that toaccordance show in any as judiciously proceeding towithhowlaw." the andunder concerned mere this use the harshworkman for one and itemployees section ofdoes 11. hundred had thesixty not nowords theinterest call were Labour for Conclusions three 'disproportionate' remaining in anythe days interference andCourt, work regarding in hisabsent of Tribunal the orbymanagement.
for 'grossly thelong negligence previous court or and, record, It as thereis National disproportionate' periods and lack Tribunal, which of interest affect by as the canitself the case be workmay will benot arrived of,atshall the be by submitted such, are ashemanyisthat rely sufficient. employer notasthe looking only entitled ninepunishment onand into the tothe entries the any materials concerned of relief.
period of dismissal on punishmentof The record employee isissue absence, lawful andismore awarded shall was and accordingly, to justified him for
14. notEven requiredtakeotherwise particularly, any at leastfresh when to unauthorized evidence bring same some in relation is absence material unauthorized. tofromthe on the duty and decided the same in favour unauthorized matter."9.
record may Burden of to be absenceisthe show upheld. In management on recent the andas employee to the how times, his andwho workman absence against thereclaims the was is that appears workman.
on an to be without anythereincreasing the basis reason was isofaevidence sanctioned no serious negligence of leave this,and/or misconduct and perhaps andas lackto well-
how furnishes of a good incorrigible.there meantHiswas interest but casetonoestablish wholly isnegligence.
squarely unsustainable, it by Habitual coveredplacing byabsence tendency relevant is the authority of towards a factor ground for materials. which terminationClausea denudation establishes of service of lack the
(ii)ofofa workman. legitimacy of interest Para 4 ofIn this of in the regard I
18.
13.
12. Sardar Singh judicial work.
The In Standing Section reference an (Supra).
There reasoning 11authority OrderA of cannot is theanswered and shows process.
be the reported Industrial in anyDisputes the asThe Life sweeping above seriousness reliefs Insurance terms.
Act Six provides am fortified granted generalization. attached by an by the to authority habitualBut Courts atabsence.
the mustsame reported beIn asseen time clause Delhi to some be
(i) Transport copies of the Corporation as under:- logical telltale award thereof, of and features India be theretenable Vs.sentR. can toDhandapani, is within the be appropriate noticed requirement the framework and 2006 government.
of pressed 1 prior LLJ of SC 329,File the into law service permission. and Only should to arrive notatincur exception conclusions and justify made is inincase the Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh (Supra), wherein Hon'ble be consigned criticism departmental of to record sudden thatroom.
proceedings. the jurisdiction ofof the Courts Hon'ble
16. Supreme "Powers Standing Court ofillness.
Labour of leaveThere dealt withCourts, at the also powers conditions Tribunals credit court of workman are section under and in his tends to degenerate stipulated, non-observance of which rendersinto misplaced sympathy, Supreme Court National dealt Tribunals with a case to give appropriate of unauthorized absence of an 11A of the generosity 10. the Act absence and Great and private unauthorized". observed inemphasis paragraphs benevolence.
was 8 to laidasIt under:-
10 by is leave account reliefdoesinnot case exonerate of discharge him from or the obligation dismissal of of filing essentialcounsel learned to maintain for thethe respondent-employee integrity of legal employee from duty and observed workmen.-Where an in paragraphs industrial dispute 9 to 11 as Dated : 16.5.2007 reasoning on the absence andbeing thetreated legitimacy (O.P. as leave SAINI)of without the leave application relating at toappropriate the discharge time or anddismissal in appropriate a manner.
of LABOUR conclusions. pay. As was observed They PRESIDING must by thisemanate Court OFFICER, logically in State under:- workman has been referred to a judicial Labour
15. from of Madhya the It "8.Authorities legal Pradesh issubmitted not findings V. COURT Harihar bynot necessary and NO.
Gopal Ld.placed to the AR goVII, for (1969) into DELHI.
workman in are In the instant Court, case,Tribunalworkman or has National Tribunal on record for any results (3) detail SLR must274)be regarding bythe seen a three-judge power to be principled Bench of exercisable this and under "9.
adjudication When and, an
in employee
the course absents
of the
not applicable supportable Court, Sectionto theeven 11A facts onwhen of of those the the an case Act. order findings.
as The P. ispowerpassed Expansive Venkatesan underfor (Supra), evidence tohimselfthe effect adjudication from that duty,he had proceedings, evenapplied without the forsanctioned Labour leave Court,at any stage. judicial treating said absence mood Section of 11A as mistaken leave without and misplaced pay after leave Tribunal for orvery Nationallong has period, Tribunal, to itbeprima as exercised theforfacie case compassion passing judiciously an order at and the theof expense termination Industrial of thethat Tribunal legitimacy is or the Hyderrabad As such, the shows may Plywood submission lack isof interest be, Industries of Ld. AR satisfied in that Pvt.
of workman work. the Ltd.
Paraorder 19(h) thatthe (Supra) ofleave was of and of purpose Labour the process of Court,Order maintaining will as theascase eventually correct mayabove record be, is relateslead expected of to the Standing discharge or dismissal quoted was not justified, to it : 20 13 :
14 15 16 17 1819 (RC) Palaniappan lying to hisservice.
may, to R.M. mutually habitual credit interfere by butThe (Supra) negligence irreconcilable its thecharge award, same withwere was inofset that the situations not duties aside case not granted decision was, the andandis regarding order aslack denude ofof inno the ofause. unauthorized discharge management the interest present judicial case, in the process or absence under Authority's dismissal Section ofwithout its dignity, 11-A work.
obtaining andofWhen authority, thedirect leave Act an absence ofin reinstatement only predictability employee advance. an when absents employee The itand ofisconduct the respectability. himself satisfied workman from ofhis from the thaton employees duty placepunishment suchwithoutofterms in duty. In and conditions, imposed sanctioned this casebyisleave the nothing ifmanagement any, the Authority asbut it thinks irresponsible is can, wholly fit, or ongive and the in
17. Balachenamma such shockingly 10. basis extreme In viewother of and the of Though P. (Supra), disproportionate relief the record, can facts tohardly under thethe and come workman law Section workmanbetoreferred justified. the a wasconclusion 11-A, degree including to The above, absentthe of forI four find the award guilt Tribunal about charge of the in of hasthis workman anyemployee thelesser casepower concerned.
was punishment being to misconduct reduce Tohabitually insupport lieuthe by of that monthsthe but actabsence.
discharge its quantum negligent ofconclusion the the workman previousIn of in orview duties punishment dismissal theofconstitutes record Industrial and theofas an Governing itthe exhibited has Tribunal serious absenteeism circumstances to Standing belack misconduct ordone was the of not provedand of the case Labour within interest Orders the unauthorized Court, inmayparameters the asrequire:
the employer's case leave of maylaw.
canwork.
be, Possession behas treatedto Ample give of as the punishment against him. reasons power material misconduct.
imposed However,isin was itself support produced upon in notof the himsufficient;
itsbefore instant isdecision.
neither case,theitworkman Tribunal disproportionate The has power to be in was absentnor Provided has exercised each tocase be in exercised that toaccordance show in any as judiciously proceeding towithhowlaw." the andunder concerned mere this use harsh for oneand itemployees section ofdoes 11. hundred thesixty notwords thecall were Labour for Conclusions three 'disproportionate' remaining any and days interference Court, regarding in hisabsent Tribunal or byfor 'grossly thelong negligence previous court or and, record, as there National disproportionate' periods and lack Tribunal, which of interest affect by as the canitself the case be workmay will benot arrived of,atshall the be by such, are ashemanyislooking rely sufficient. employer notasonly entitled nineintoonand the tothe entries the any materials concerned relief.
period of on punishmentof The record employee issue absence, andismore awarded shall was accordingly, to him for
14. notEven requiredtakeotherwise particularly, any at leastfresh when to unauthorized evidence bring same some in relation is absence material unauthorized. tofrom the on the duty decided in favour unauthorized matter."9.
record Burden of toisthe absence show In management on recent the andas employee to the how times, his andwho workman absence against thereclaims the was is that appears workman.
on an to be without anythereincreasing the basis reason was isofaevidence sanctioned no serious negligenceof leave this,and/or misconduct and perhaps and as lackto well-
how furnishes of a good incorrigible.there meantHiswas interest but casetonoestablish wholly isnegligence.
squarely unsustainable, it by Habitual coveredplacing byabsence tendency relevant is the authority of towards a factor ground for materials. which terminationClausea denudation establishes of service of lack the
(ii)ofofa workman. legitimacy of interest Para 4 ofIn this of in the regard I
18.
13. Sardar Singh judicial work.
The reference In(Supra). Standing an There reasoning Ordercannot authority is answered and shows process.
be the reported in anythe asThe Life sweeping above seriousness reliefs Insurance terms. Six am fortified granted generalization. attached by an by the to authority habitualBut Courts atabsence.
the mustsame reported beIn asseen time clause Delhi to some be
(i) Transport copies of the Corporation logical telltale award thereof, of and features India be theretenable Vs.sentR. can toDhandapani, is within the be appropriate noticed requirement the framework and 2006 government.
of pressed 1 prior LLJof SC 329,File the into law service permission. and Only should to arrive notatincur exception conclusions and justify made is inincase the Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh (Supra), wherein Hon'ble be consigned criticism departmental to ofStandingrecord sudden thatroom.
proceedings. illness.the jurisdiction ofof the Courts Hon'ble
16. Supreme Court ofdealt leaveThere with at the also powers conditions credit court of workman are section under in his tends to degenerate into stipulated, non-observance of which renders misplaced sympathy, Supreme Court dealt with a case of unauthorized absence of an 11A the thegenerosity
10. absence Great and private unauthorized".inemphasis benevolence.
wasto 10 laidasIt under:-
by is leaveofaccount Actdoes and not observed exonerate paragraphs him from 8the obligation of filing essentialcounsel learned to maintain for thethe respondent-employee integrity of legal employee from duty and observed in paragraphs 9 to 11 as Dated : 16.5.2007 reasoning on the absence andbeing thetreated legitimacy (O.P. as leave SAINI) of without the leave application at appropriate time and in appropriate manner.
conclusions. pay. As was observed TheyPRESIDING must by thisemanate Court OFFICER, logically in State LABOUR under:-
15. from of Madhya the legal "8.Authorities Pradesh findings issubmitted V. COURT Harihar and NO.
Gopal thegoVII, judicial (1969) DELHI.
In the instant case, Itworkman not hasbynot
necessary Ld.placed
toAR for onworkman
into in
record are
any
results (3) detail SLRmust 274)be by seena three-judge to be principled Bench of this and "9. regarding Whenthe an power exercisable employee under absents not applicable supportable Court, even onwhen those an order findings.
TheP.isfor passed Expansive Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence thetoeffect toSection himself the 11A from facts that of of duty, the hethe had case Act.
even appliedas without power leave sanctioned under at any stage. judicial treating said absence mood of as mistaken leave without and misplaced pay after leave Section for very 11A long has period, to itbeprima exercised facie compassion passing judiciously an order at the of expense termination of thethat legitimacy is for the Hyderrabad As such, the shows lack and Plywood submission of the Industries of interest Ld. Industrial AR in work.ofPvt. Tribunal workman ParaLtd. 19(h)or that the (Supra) ofleave wasand of purpose Labour the process of Court,Order maintaining will as theascase eventually correct mayabove record be, is relateslead expected of to the Standing quoted to : 20 14 :
15 16 17 1819 (RC) Palaniappan lying to hisservice. R.M. tocredit mutually habitual interfere butThe (Supra) negligence irreconcilable thecharge same withwere was inofthat the situations not duties case not granted decision was, andandisas regarding lack denude ofof innothe ofause.
unauthorized management the interest present judicial case, in the process absence underAuthority's Section ofwithout its dignity, 11-A work.
obtainingofWhen authority, theleave Act an absence ofin only predictability employee advance. an when absents employee The itand isconduct respectability. himself satisfied from ofhis from the thatplace employees duty punishment without in of duty. In imposed sanctioned this casebyisleave thenothing management the Authority but irresponsible is can, wholly on andthe in
17. Balachenamma shockingly 10. basis extreme In view of and the of Though P. (Supra), disproportionate the record, can facts hardly under theand come law Section betoreferred workman justified.
the a wasconclusion 11-A, degree to The above, the absentof forI four find guilt of the Tribunal about charge in has this workman employee thecasepower concerned.
wasbeing to misconduct reduce Tohabitually support the by that monthsthe but actabsence. itsthe quantum negligent ofconclusion the workman previousIn of in view duties punishment theofconstitutes record Industrial and theof an Governing it exhibited has Tribunal serious absenteeism to Standing belack misconduct ordone was the of not provedand Labour the within interest Orders unauthorized Court, in parameters theas the employer's case leave of may law.
canwork.
be, Possession behas treated to Ample give of as the punishment against him. reasons power material misconduct.
imposed However,isin was itself support produced upon in notof the himsufficient;
itsbefore instant isdecision.
neither case,theitworkman Tribunal disproportionate The has power to bein was absentnor has tocase exercised each be in exercised toaccordance show as judiciously towithhowlaw." the andconcerned mere use harsh for oneand itemployees of 11. hundred doesthesixty notwords call were for 'disproportionate' Conclusions three remaining any and days interference regarding in hisabsent or byfor 'grossly thelong negligence previous court record, and, as there disproportionate' periods and lack which of interest affect by can itself thebe workwill not arrived ofat thebe by such, are ashemanyislooking sufficient. employer notas entitled nineinto and tothe entries the anyof concerned relief. period punishmentof The employee issue absence, awarded ismore was accordingly, to him for
14. required Even otherwise particularly, at least when to unauthorized bring same some absence materialfrom is unauthorized. on the duty decided in favour unauthorized 9. absence record Burden of toisthe show In management on recent theas employee and to the how times, his andwho workmanabsence against thereclaims the was is that appearsworkman.
on an to be increasing the without anythere basis reason was isofaevidence sanctioned no negligence serious of leave this,and/or misconduct and perhaps andas lackto well-
how furnishesof a good incorrigible.there meantHiswas interest but casetonoestablish wholly isnegligence.
squarely unsustainable, it by Habitual placing covered absence by tendency relevant is the authority of towards a factor ground for materials. which terminationClausea denudation establishes of service of lack the
(ii)ofofa workman. legitimacy of interest Para 4 ofIn this of in the regard I
18. judicial work.
The reference Standing There reasoning cannot is answered and process.be in anythe The sweeping above reliefs terms. Six Sardar Singh (Supra).Order shows the seriousness am fortified granted generalization. attached by an by the to authority But habitualCourts atabsence.
the mustsame reported beInasseen time clause Delhi to somebe
(i) Transport copies of the logical telltale award thereof, and features be theretenable sentcan to within is the be appropriate noticed requirementthe framework andof government.
pressed of prior File the into law service permission. and Only should to arrive notatincur exception conclusions and justify made is inincase the Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh (Supra), wherein Hon'ble be consigned criticism departmental to ofStandingrecord sudden thatroom.
proceedings. the jurisdiction illness. of the Courts
16. of leaveThere at the also conditions credit of workman are in his tends stipulated,to degenerate non-observance into misplaced of which sympathy, renders Supreme Court dealt with a case of unauthorized absence of an generosity 10. the absence Great and private emphasis benevolence.
was laidIt by is leave account does not unauthorized".
exonerate him from the obligation of filing essentialcounsel learned to maintain for thethe respondent-employee integrity of legal employee from duty and observed in paragraphs 9 to 11 as Dated : 16.5.2007 reasoning on the absence andbeing thetreated legitimacy (O.P. as leave SAINI)of without the leave application at appropriate time and in appropriate manner.
conclusions. pay. As was observed TheyPRESIDING must by this emanate Court OFFICER,logically in State LABOUR under:-
15. from of Madhya the legal Authorities Pradesh findings submitted V.COURT Harihar and NO.
Gopal the VII, judicial (1969) DELHI. are In the instant case, workman hasbynot Ld.placed AR for onworkman record any results (3) SLRmust 274)be by seena three-judge to be principledBench of this and "9. When an employee absents not applicablesupportable Court, to even the facts onwhen of those ancase order findings. as P.isfor passed Expansive Venkatesan for (Supra), evidence tohimselfthe effect from thatduty,hethe had even applied without leave at any sanctioned stage. judicial absence treating mood ofasmistaken leave without and misplaced pay after leave for very long period, it prima facie compassion passing an order at theofexpense termination of the thatlegitimacy is for the Hyderrabad As such, the shows Plywood submission lack of interest Industries of Ld. AR in work.ofPvt.
workman ParaLtd. 19(h) (Supra) that ofleave wasand of the process purpose of maintaining will eventuallycorrect record lead of to the Standing Order as quoted above relates to : 20 15 :
16 17 1819 (RC) Palaniappan lying to hisservice. R.M. mutually habitual credit but The (Supra) negligence irreconcilable thecharge same were was inofthat situations not duties case notgranted was, and andisas regarding lack denude ofinnothe ofuse.
unauthorized the judicial interest present case, in the process absence Authority's ofwithout its dignity, work.
obtainingWhen authority, leave an absence ofin predictability employee advance. an employee absents The andconduct respectability. himself from ofhis from the place employees duty without of duty.in In sanctioned this case isleave nothing the Authority but irresponsible can, on the in
17. Balachenamma 10.In view basis extreme of and the ofThough P. (Supra), the record, can factshardly under theand come law Section betoreferred workman justified.
a was conclusion 11-A, to The above, the forI four absent find Tribunalthe about charge in has thisemployee the casepower wasbeing to misconduct reduce habitually the by that monthsthe but actabsence. quantum negligent of the the workman In previousof in view duties punishment ofconstitutes record and theof an Governing it exhibited has serious absenteeism to Standing belack misconduct was done of and not proved within the interest Orders unauthorized in parameters the employer's leave of law. canwork.
Possession be treated Ample of as the punishment against him. power material misconduct.
imposed iswas However, itself produced upon in nothim the sufficient;
before instant is neither theitworkman case, Tribunal disproportionate has to be in nor was absent exercised each case intoaccordance show as towith howlaw." the concerned harsh for oneand itemployees doessixty 11. hundred not call were fordays Conclusions three remaining any and interference absent regarding in his byfor thelong negligence previous court record,and, as there periods and lack which of interest affectcanthebe work arrivedofat the by such, are ashemanyislooking employer notas entitled nineinto and tothe entriesthe anyofconcerned relief. period of The punishment employee issue absence, awarded ismore was accordingly, to him for
14. required Even otherwise particularly, at leastwhen to unauthorized bring same some absence materialfrom is unauthorized. on the duty decided in favour unauthorized record Burden of toisthe absence show onmanagement theas employee and to the how workman his andwho absence against claims the wasthat appearsworkman.
on to be the without anythere basis reason was isofanosanctioned negligence serious leaveand/or misconduct andand as lack to how furnishesof a good incorrigible.there Hiswas interest tonoestablish case isnegligence.
squarely it by Habitual placing covered absence by relevant is the authority of a factor ground for materials. which terminationClause establishes of service lack
(ii)ofofa workman. of interest Para 4 ofIn this in the regard I
18. work.
The reference Standing There cannot is answered be in anythe sweeping above terms. Six Sardar Singh (Supra).Order shows the seriousness am fortified generalization.
attached by anto authority But atabsence.
habitual the sameIn reported astime clause Delhi some(i) Transport copies of the telltale awardfeatures thereof, be theresentcan to the is be appropriate noticed andof requirement government.
pressed prior File into service Only permission. to arrive exceptionat conclusions made is inincase the Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh (Supra), wherein Hon'ble be consigned departmental to recordillness. ofStanding sudden room.
proceedings.also conditions are
16. of leaveThere at the credit of workman in his stipulated, non-observance of which renders Supreme Court dealt with a case of unauthorized absence of an
10. absenceGreat the emphasis was laid by leave account does not unauthorized".
exonerate him from the obligation of filing learned counsel for the respondent-employee employee from duty and observed in paragraphs 9 to 11 as Dated : 16.5.2007 on the absence being treated (O.P. as leaveSAINI)without leave application at appropriate time and in appropriate manner.
pay. As was observed PRESIDING by this Court OFFICER,in State LABOUR under:-
15. ofAuthorities Madhya Pradesh submitted V.COURT Harihar NO.
Gopal AR VII, (1969) DELHI. are In the instant case, workman hasbynot Ld.placed for onworkman record any (3) SLR 274) by a three-judge Bench of this "9. When an employee absents not applicableCourt, to even the facts when of ancase order as P.isfor passed for (Supra), Venkatesan evidence tohimself the effect from hethe thatduty, had even applied without leave at any stage.
sanctioned treating absence as leave without pay after leave for very long period, it prima facie passing an order of termination that is for the Hyderrabad As such, the shows Plywood submission Industries of lack of interest Ld. AR ofPvt.
in work. workmanLtd.
Para 19(h) (Supra) that and ofleave was purpose of maintaining correct record of the Standing Order as quoted above relates to : 20 16 :
17 1819 (RC) Palaniappan lying to hisservice. R.M. habitual credit but The (Supra) negligence thecharge same were was inofthatnot duties case notgranted was, and isas regarding lack ofinnothe ofuse.
unauthorized interest case, present in the absence Authority's withoutwork. obtaining When leave an absence ofin employee advance. an employee absents The conducthimself from ofhis from the place employees duty without of duty.in In sanctioned this case isleave nothing the Authority but irresponsible can, on the in
17. Balachenamma basis extreme In viewof and the of the P. (Supra), record, can factshardly theand come law betoreferred workman justified.
a was conclusion to The above, absent forI four find about the charge in this employee case wasbeing misconduct habitually by that monthsthe but actabsence.
negligent of the the workman Inin view previous duties ofconstitutes record and theof an Governing exhibited seriousStanding absenteeism lack misconduct was of and not proved interest unauthorized Orders in the employer's leave canwork. be treatedAmple as the punishment against him. material misconduct.
imposed However, was produced upon in the him before instant is neither theworkman case, Tribunal disproportionate in nor was absent each case to show as to how the concerned harsh for oneand itemployees hundred11.doessixty not call were fordays Conclusions three remaining any and interference absent regarding in his byforthelong negligence previous court record,and, as there periods and lack which of interest affectcanthebe work arrivedofat the by such, are ashemanyislooking employer notas entitled nineinto and tothe entriesthe anyofconcerned relief. period of The punishment employee issue absence, awarded ismore was accordingly, to him for required at least particularly, when to bring same some material on is unauthorized. decided in favour unauthorized record Burden of toisthe absence show onmanagement theas employee and to the how workman his andwho absence against claimsthe wasthat appearsworkman.
on to be the basis there wasof no sanctioned negligence leaveand/or and as lackto how of incorrigible.there Hiswas interest tonoestablish case isnegligence.
squarely it by Habitual placing covered absence by relevant is the authority of amaterials. factor which establishes lack Clause (ii) of Para 4 of the of interest in
18. work.
The reference Standing There cannot is answered be in anythe sweeping above terms. Six Sardar Singh (Supra).Order shows the seriousness generalization. attached to habitual But atabsence. the sameIn time clause some(i) copies of the telltale awardfeatures thereof, be theresentcan to the is be appropriate noticed andof requirement government.
pressed prior File into service Only permission. to arrive exceptionat conclusions made is inincase the be consigned departmental to recordillness. ofStanding sudden room.
proceedings.also conditions are
16. of leaveThere at the credit of workman in his stipulated, non-observance of which renders
10. absenceGreat the emphasis was laid by leave account does not unauthorized".
exonerate him from the obligation of filing learned counsel for the respondent-employee Dated : 16.5.2007on the absence being treated (O.P. as leave SAINI) without leave application at appropriate time and in appropriate manner.
pay. As was observed PRESIDING by this Court OFFICER, in State LABOUR
15. ofAuthorities Madhya Pradesh submitted V.COURT Harihar NO.
Gopal AR VII, (1969) DELHI. are In the instant case, workman hasbynot Ld.placed for onworkman record any (3) SLR 274) by a three-judge Bench of this not applicable Court, the even whentheancase order as P.isforpassed for (Supra), Venkatesan evidence to thetoeffect facts that of he had applied leave at any stage. treating absence as leave without pay after passing an order of termination that is for the Hyderrabad As such, the submission Plywood of Industries Ld. AR ofPvt. Ltd. that workman (Supra) and leave was purpose of maintaining correct record of : 20 17 :
1819 (RC) Palaniappan lying R.M. to hisservice.
credit but (Supra) The thecharge same were was in that not case notgranted was,isasofinno regarding theuse.
unauthorized present case, absence without obtaining leave absence ofin advance. The conduct an employee from ofhisthe place employees in of duty. In this case is nothing but irresponsible in
17. Balachenamma extreme In view and of the can P. (Supra), facts hardly theand law be referred workman justified.
was to The above, absent forI four find charge in this case was misconduct by that monthsthe but actabsence.
of the the workman In view previous ofconstitutes record the of Governing seriousStanding absenteeism misconduct was not proved and Orders unauthorized leave can be treated as the punishment against him.misconduct.
imposed in However, upon the him is neither instant disproportionate case, workman was absentnor harsh for oneand it11.
doessixty hundred not call fordays any and Conclusions three interference regarding by the court negligence in his previous and, record, as there and lack of interest can be arrived at by such, are ashemany islooking not as entitled nineinto tothe entriesanyofrelief.
period of The punishment issue absence, ismore awarded accordingly, to him for particularly, when same is unauthorized. decided in favour unauthorized Burden ofisthe absence onmanagement the and employee andwho the workman against the that claims workman. appears to be there was no negligence and/or lack of incorrigible.interest His case to establish is squarely it by placing covered by relevant the authority of materials. Clause (ii) of Para 4 of the
18. The reference Standing is answered in the above terms. Six Sardar Singh (Supra).Order shows the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) copies of the award be thereof, sent is there to the appropriate of requirement government.
prior File permission. Only exception made is in case be consigned to recordillness.
ofStanding sudden room.
16. of leaveThere at thealso conditions credit are in his of workman stipulated, non-observance of which renders leave accountthe does absence not unauthorized".
exonerate him from the obligation of filing Dated : 16.5.2007 (O.P. SAINI) leave application at appropriate time and in appropriate manner.
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR
15. Authorities submittedCOURT NO.
AR VII, foronDELHI. In the instant case, workman hasbynot Ld.placed workman are record any not applicable evidence to thetoeffect the facts that of hethe hadcase as P.for applied Venkatesan (Supra), leave at any stage.
Hyderrabad Plywood of As such, the submission Industries Ld. AR ofPvt. Ltd. that workman (Supra) and leave was : 20 18 :
19 (RC) Palaniappan lying R.M. to his credit but (Supra) the same were was not notgranted is of no regarding use.
unauthorized absence of an employee from his place of duty. In
17. In view Balachenamma of the facts P. (Supra), theand law referred workman was to above, absent forI four find that the but months act the of the workman previous constitutes record serious misconduct of absenteeism and was not proved the punishment against imposed in him. However, upon the him is neither instant disproportionate case, workman nor was absent harsh for oneand it doessixty hundred not call fordays three any and interference by the court in his previous and, record, as there such, are ashemany is not as entitled to anyofrelief. nine entries The issue punishment is accordingly, awarded to him for decided in favour unauthorized of the management absence and against appears and the workman the workman.
to be incorrigible. His case is squarely covered by the authority of
18. The reference is answered in the above terms. Six Sardar Singh (Supra).
copies of the award be sent to the appropriate government. File be consigned to record room.
16. Standing of leave at the credit of workman in his leave account does not exonerate him from the obligation of filing Dated : 16.5.2007 (O.P. SAINI) leave application at appropriate time and in appropriate manner.
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. VII, DELHI. In the instant case, workman has not placed on record any evidence to the effect that he had applied for leave at any stage.
As such, the submission of Ld. AR of workman that leave was : 20 19 : (RC) lying to his credit but the same was not granted is of no use.
17. In view of the facts and law referred to above, I find that the act of the workman constitutes serious misconduct and the punishment imposed upon him is neither disproportionate nor harsh and it does not call for any interference by the court and, as such, he is not entitled to any relief. The issue is accordingly, decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
18. The reference is answered in the above terms. Six copies of the award be sent to the appropriate government. File be consigned to record room.
Dated : 16.5.2007 (O.P. SAINI) PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. VII, DELHI.
: 20 : (RC)