- (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 4.3.2013 (Annexure P-10) whereby the Labour Court-II, Chandigarh has substituted the punishment of removal with stoppage of two increments permanently and held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated without payment of back-wages. From the record of the writ petition, it transpires that the demand notice dated 5.7.2004 (Annexure P-6) was served upon by the petitioner challenging the termination on the basis of which reference was made to the Labour Court.
(2.) As per the statement of claim, the workman-respondent No. 2 was appointed as a regular labourer in the Post and Telegraph Department in February, 1988 and he worked at Rs. 2403 per month. He was threatened with termination of service and as such filed an application with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and an interim protection was granted to him on 28.5.1993. Thereafter, he withdrew the said application 20.9.1993 on the ground that case was covered under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act"). Thereafter, the Management terminated his services on 21.9.1993 and he was relieved from duty as Extra Departmental Agent (EDA). He served a demand notice dated 22.9.1993 to the Management and they had agreed to reinstate him and he was reinstated with effect from 30.4.1994 and posted at Bus Stand Office, Ludhiana. Thereafter, he performed his duties upto 3.7.2000 and took leave from 4.7.2000 to 13.7.2000 and thereafter upto 23.11.2000. He was not allowed to join his duty thereafter. He served a demand notice on 22.8.2003 and he was reinstated and joined his duty on 5.9.2003 and was transferred to Khasi Kalan Branch office, Ludhiana. He was thereafter removed from service and relieved from duties on 28.6.2004/5.7.2004. Accordingly, it was pleaded that mandatory provisions of the Act had not been complied with and that he had not absented intentionally and remained on leave and absence from duty is not such a grave offence for which the extreme punishment of removal from service could be imposed. The departmental enquiry was illegal and against the principle of natural justice and action of the respondents was arbitrary and he was not even granted any personal hearing by the competent authority.
(3.) In reply to the claim petition, the petitioner department took various pleas including the fact that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in the matter and the workman had remained absent from duty from 1.9.2000 to 5.9.2003 and he was asked to join his duties immediately vide letter dated 23.12.2000. He resumed his duties on 5.9.2003 after a period of three years three days and was proceeded against for remaining unauthorisedly absent and charge sheeted on 10.11.2003. He appeared before the Enquiry Officer and pleaded his guilt of the charges in his own hand written application submitted before the Enquiry Officer on 8.1.2004 and appropriate action had been taken against him after following the due procedure and he was duly heard in person and given opportunity to defend himself.;