Kerala High Court
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs N.S. Suresh on 23 January, 2017
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/3RD MAGHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 19109 of 2010 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
COCHIN REGIONAL OFFICE, TATAPURAM P.O.,
P.B.NO.1602, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER.
BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. N.S. SURESH, PULLAMALAVI HOUSE,
VADAVUKODE P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 310.
2. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KARITHALA LANE,
KOCHI- 682 016.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
R2 BY SHRI.P.FAZIL, CGC
BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 19109 of 2010 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
P1: COPY OF THE AWARD DT 24.2.2010 IN I.D NO. 220/2006.
P2: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DT 15/1/2007 FILED
BY THE R1.
P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT 22/3/2007 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
=========================
W.P.(C) No.19109 of 2010
==========================
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a body corporate, has filed this writ petition challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Ernakulam, as per which, the punishment awarded in a disciplinary enquiry conducted by the competent officers of the petitioner against one of their employees had been interfered in part by reducing the punishment imposed.
2. The pleadings on record reveal that the first respondent was a workman who was appointed in the services of the petitioner as a general workman in the year 1993. In 2002, he was charge sheeted for unauthorised habitual absence exceeding 21 consecutive days. In the enquiry conducted, though it was found that he was a habitual absentee, the allegation that the absence exceeded 21 consecutive days was not proved. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with these findings of the enquiry officer and he suo motu concluded that W.P.(C) No.19109 of 2010 2 the unauthorised absence of the first respondent sometimes exceeded 21 consecutive days. Based on such conclusion, the petitioner was discharged from service by the disciplinary authority which was thereafter confirmed by the appellate authority.
3. The disciplinary enquiry report and all consequential orders were challenged by the first respondent which led to a reference being made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act as to whether the action of the management in discharging the first respondent was fair and just and if not, what was the relief that he was entitled to. The Tribunal considered the entire conspectus of facts and evidence before it and came to conclude that even though the first respondent can be held to be guilty of habitual absenteeism, the allegation that he was absent for 21 consecutive days in any of such spells was without basis even going by the records maintained by the management. The Tribunal also found that most of the time, the first respondent was absent due to medical reasons and that since the first respondent had been debilitated due to illnesses acquired during the period in which he was in service, the W.P.(C) No.19109 of 2010 3 punishment of removal was completely disproportionate and harsh and that he had to be reinstated but, with a lesser punishment. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the punishment requires to be reduced to the stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect and directed the management to reinstate the first respondent in service, but without back wages and continuity in service. This award, appended to the writ petition as Ext.P1, has been challenged by the petitioner as being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. I have heard Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, assisted by Sri.Jai Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preethy Ramakrishnan appearing for the first respondent.
5. I have examined the order impugned in this writ petition. I see that the Tribunal has considered each of the issues raised before it with great circumspection and care. The facts have been analysed in detail and the evidence on record assessed with precision. The Tribunal has concluded, based on the evidence and material on record, that the first respondent had been absenting from service very often leading to an inference that he W.P.(C) No.19109 of 2010 4 was guilty of habitual absenteeism. However, it has concluded, rightly so, that none of the spells where he was absent had the first respondent remain continuously absent for 21 consecutive days. The Tribunal has also concluded that since the first respondent was absent, albeit without proper sanction of leave, for medical reasons and due to indisposition, the extreme punishment of removal of service was unwarranted and grossly disproportionate. The Tribunal, being the last fact finding authority in the chain of authorities relating to domestic enquiry and proceedings, I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of fact and appreciation of evidence made and entered into by the Tribunal. The law is well settled. It requires no further restatement that in matters of disciplinary enquiry and proceedings, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the extent to see whether the proceedings have been conducted in the manner prescribed under law, whether evidence has been gathered, witnesses allowed to be cross-examined for corroboration and as to whether there is sufficient evidence on record to justify the conclusion arrived at by the authorities in the hierarchy relating to such enquiry. This is not a case where W.P.(C) No.19109 of 2010 5 there is any allegation of lack of evidence or any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. In fact, the order impugned would show ineluctably that the Tribunal has considered every issue relating to facts and evidence in great detail and irreproachably.
6. In the above circumstances, I do not deem it necessary to interfere with the award impugned in this writ petition and also am firmly of the view that the Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction validly and that it has not exceeded jurisdiction at all in modifying the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the first respondent. I am definitely of the opinion that the first respondent deserves to be reinstated in service, as has been ordered in the impugned award and this is more so because I notice that ever since the date of filing of the writ petition, the first respondent has been enjoyed wages under the provisions of Section 17B of the Act as per an interim order of this Court dated 05.08.2010. It is also confirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have been paying such wages to the first respondent until today. It would, therefore, be also in the interest of the petitioner that the award of the Tribunal be W.P.(C) No.19109 of 2010 6 given effect to so that the first respondent's service could be used profitably without having to suffer the wages paid to him under Section 17B any further.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
stu JUDGE