Surya Kant, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 21.3.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Hisar, answering the reference against him and upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby his services were terminated.
(2.) The petitioner joined the Haryana Roadways as a Conductor on 10.2.1980. He started absenting from duty w.e.f. 21.1.2000 and did not resume duties despite the notice sent to him. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for being willfully absent from duty to which he did not submit any reply. An ex-parte enquiry was held against the petitioner and the allegation of his absenting from duty without any reasonable cause, having been proved, the Disciplinary Authority terminated his services. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also declined. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an 'industrial dispute' which has been answered against him vide the "impugned award.
(3.) The Labour Court has found no fault with the enquiry proceedings held against the petitioner as he refused to participate in those proceedings despite an opportunity afforded to him. The Labour Court has thus rightly held that the enquiry proceedings were held in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. However, the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 also exists on the Statute Book. The said provision enables the Labour Court/Tribunal to set-aside the order of discharge or dismissal of a workman. where it is satisfied that such punishment is unjustified and award a lesser punishment in lieu thereof. The impugned award does not suggest any discussion as to why the Labour Court held that punishment of termination of service was justified especially when the petitioner had served the department for almost 20 years and even if his retention in service was unwarranted, a lesser punishment like compulsory or pre-mature retirement from service could be awarded.;