P.D. Dinakaran, C J: - (1.) The writ appeal is directed against the Order dated 11.4.2008 made in Writ Petition No. 42619 of 2004 partly allowing the said writ petition where the appellant-management had challenged the award dated 11.8.2006 in I.D. No. 126 of 1999.
(2.) The brief facts that led the management to file the above writ appeal are stated hereunder: The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court against the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-management holding the respondent-workman guilty of misconduct for having remained unauthorisedly absent for 43 days during the year 1998 of course after a due enquiry. 2.1. The Labour Court is the said award dated 11.8.2004 in I.D. No. 126 of 1999 held the enquiry was fair and proper. However, considering the explanation offered by the respondent-workman that during the relevant period of absence as per the supporting evidence, the respondent was the eldest son and his brother was mentally retarded and he was forced to go to his native place for his brother's treatment who subsequently died. Hence he absented himself for 43 days unauthorisedly. Accepting the explanation offered by the respondent-workman exercising the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act') while holding the enquiry was fair and proper held the punishment of dismissal imposed on the respondent was disproportionate and therefore, the Labour Court ordered the appellant-management to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and directed the appellant-management to pay 20 per cent of the back- wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and imposed a punishment of denial of three increments with cumulative effect.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said award the management preferred the Writ Petition No. 42619 of 2004 contending that the respondent-workman remained unauthorisedly absent even on earlier occasions as per his past history and he has committed chronic misconduct by absenting himself consistently and therefore there is no justification for the Labour Court to exercise the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the punishment.;