Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And ... on 8 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2005)139PLR844
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is directed against the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda on 27.3.1987 in Reference Case No. 267 of 1982 whereby he answered the reference against the concerned workman (the petitioner herein) and in favour of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Bhatinda-I. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of for purposes of deciding this writ petition, are that on 23.2.1981, the Respondent No. 1 passed an order, terminating the services of the petitioner. Upon the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having been set in motion, a reference was made and the question that fell for adjudication was whether the termination of the service of the workmen was justified or not and if not, to what relief was he entitled to?
3. Let it be recorded that in spite of this case having been listed on the board, there is no appearance on behalf of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, although it is stated at the Bar that notices were served upon them.
4. Upon perusal of the relevant pleadings it is evident that on 5.9.1980 the petitioner played truant as a result of which, the Bus No. 2147 could not make the requisite number of trips in the absence of the petitioner who, was deputed to conduct that bus.
5. It appears that on account of the aforesaid absence of the writ petitioner, the Respondent issued a charge-sheet whereafter an explanation was submitted by the petitioner to the effect that he could not be present because he had to attend a preceeding in a Court at Bhatinda.
6. The Labour Court held that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the petitioner was justified. But in doing so, he appears to have totally misdirected himself. He took into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner which could not have been done on account of the fact that the petitioner was neither proceeded against nor were any charge-sheet issued to him in relation to such past misdemeanor. That apart, this Court is of the view that the punishment of termination which has been inflicted upon the petitioner for only ONE DAY'S absence is so harsh that it shocks the conscience of this Court. There can be so many reasons for a person to be absent for a day. It is true that the petitioner absented himself without any application of leave but that by itself was not such a gross misconduct calling for his ouster from service for ever.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside. It is accordingly quashed. As a consequence of setting aside of the award, the writ petition stands allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
8. No order as to costs.