Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

43. In the instant case there is no clear cut material is placed before the Enquiry Officer to demonstrate the allegation of unauthorised absence. On the other hand, the leave application placed before the Enquiry Officer has not been considered by the Enquiry Officer. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that rejection of the leave application is not communicated to the delinquent workman, leading to the ambiguity in reasoning by the Enquiry Officer. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment rendered in C.A. Nos.6765-66/2014 was pleased to observe as follows at paragraph 11:-

44. The above is indicative of the nature of material placed before the Enquiry Officer. The material placed before the Enquiry Officer was clear cut and unambiguous facts which spoke for themselves and hence, the Apex Court concluded that the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur was square applicable. On the contrary, in the case on hand, the labour court has observed that there is no material which unambiguously demonstrate the fact of unauthorised absence and in the opinion of this court it has rightly done so. The material placed before the Enquiry Officer is nothing but the version of the Depot Manager against whom the petitioner had expressed grievances with regard to allotment of work. In fact, he has alleged that he was posted on routes which entailed 10 to 11 hours duty and sometimes was forced to stay in remote places where there was no sanitation facilities much less living accommodation. The ambiguity is further compounded by the leave application. It is also pertinent to note that additional evidence and additional witnesses have been examined by the labour court at the instance of the petitioner only.

45. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ruling reported in 2014 4 SCC 108. The ingredients of the said case are not on pari materia with the facts involved herein. There the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with a case involving long and unauthorised absence without intimation to the employer despite repeated memoranda and reminders calling upon the delinquent to explain his unauthorised absence and to rejoin duty. The Apex Court was pleased to observe that a medical certificate submitted belatedly on 01.04.1997 i.e. after a delay of 8 months leads to the irresistible conclusion that the respondent had unauthorisedly absented himself from 28.08.1995. In the case on hand the critical factor which has not been explained by the Enquiry Officer is the leave application placed before it as Ex.M2. No material is placed by the employer before the Enquiry Officer to even demonstrate the falsity in the reasons ascribed for seeking leave. Hence, the reliance in the aforesaid ruling is of no avail. That apart, it is an admitted fact that the employer has in thousands of cases condoned unauthorised absence in respect of periods ranging from 150 to 200 days with light punishments. It is also a fact that the employer has consented to compromise several writ petitions involving unauthorised absence wherein, the workman has agreed to give up his claim in respect of back wages and restricted his claim for re- instatement alone. Hence, no fault can be found with the opinion of the labour court with regard to the proportionality of the punishment.

57. The very relief sought and the grounds urged in support of the said application prima-facie demonstrate that the workman was complaining of victimisation and unfair labour practices by certain officials of the corporation. In fact, I.A. No.III came to be preferred by the workman complaining that the attendance register extract which was marked before the enquiry officer was a doctored one and prayed for a direction to produce the original. The said application came to be allowed. In fact, exhibit A1 to A26 have been got marked through one Sri. Rangaswamy, the Enquiry Officer and retired Joint Law Officer previously in the service of the petitioner- corporation. The answers elicited during his cross examination makes an interesting reading. When it was suggested to him that the enquiry pertained to unauthorised absence during the year 2006, he replies that he does not remember. Similar is the answer to another suggestion, that in the said enquiry the management had not examined any witnesses. In fact he has admitted that the address shown in the articles of charges, i.e., Exhibit - A1 and the address of the respondent described in Exhibit A4, A12, A13, A14, A16, A18, A19 and A25 are different. He also admits that the delinquent workman has explained as to why he could not answer to the Articles of Charges. He also admits that he has not considered nor given reasons to reject the same in his enquiry report. These are but a few admissions in the cross examination which are recorded and running to about 20 pages. In fact he has admitted that about 25 adjournments were granted on the request of the petitioner-employer and that between dates 05.09.2008 to 16.04.2009 neither the presenting officer nor the employer witnesses were present. He has also admitted that the wife of respondent has complained against the enquiry officer i.e. the witness, stating that the enquiry officer has given false reports against her on three occasions.