husband of petitioner was not a case of habitual
absenteeism, the punishment of dismissal, passed by respondent
No.2 and upheld by Additional Commissioner ... prior to 2000 the husband of petitioner was the case of
habitual absenteeism. Considering this circumstance that the
husband of petitioner had put in more
findings recorded by the
inquiry officer that the charge of habitual absenteeism was proved against the
Petitioner requires interference and whether the punishment imposed upon ... said punishment is not disproportionate having regard to the
charge of habitual absenteeism being proved as also having regard to the past
record
holding that the workman was attending late and that he was habitual absentee and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was victimised ... habitual or gross neglect or work or habitual or gross negligence.
(xviii) late attendance on more than four occasions in a calendar month.
(xx) habitual
resorted to the extreme punishment at the very first instance of absenteeism of the respondent workman. The petitioner has tolerated him for quite some time ... which has already suffered hardships and inconvenience on account of the habitual absenteeism of the respondent workman. In fact the respondent workman should have shown
first respondent / employee had abandoned her service,
(b) she was habituated to unauthorized absenteeism, and
(c) her performance was not satisfactory.
5. He submits that ... otherwise, the petitioner has come up with a clear case of
habitual absenteeism, abandonment of service and performance not being
satisfactory. The Apex Court
petitioners past record do not justify any lenient punishment for his habitual absenteeism and thus his punishment should not be reduced by this Court ... concurrent findings of facts that the petitioner is guilty of habitual absenteeism and that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charges levelled against
habitually a latecomer. The employer by letter dated November 28, 1984 charge-sheeted him on the allegations of habitual absenteeism. The workman's advocate
follows:
The workman was charge-sheeted on 27.3.1988 for habitual absenteeism of 71 days for a period from February, 1987 to November, 1987. A domestic
record innumerable telegrams, letters, advises, cautions and warnings about your habitual absenteeism. You were informed in writing on more than one occasion that your conduct ... case of an isolated act of absenteeism on the part of the workman. The absenteeism was frequent and habitual, over a prolonged period. The past
Rules, which categorically envisage that
absenteeism without sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days, habitual
late or irregular attendance, neglect of work or negligence
