Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) The instant petition is directed against the award dated 4.12.2012 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman against an order of penalty of stoppage of his two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, has been rejected.
(2.) Brief facts are that the petitioner while working as a Driver with the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking was placed under suspension on 15.5.1998. He was ordered to be reinstated we.f. 2.7.1998 pending inquiry. On 17.2.1999 petitioner was issued a charge sheet on the allegation that he has remained willfully absent from duty w.e.f. 2.7.1998. The precise article of charge formulated against the petitioner was in the following terms:- "On 13.7.98, S/Sh. Ram Parkash, duty inspector and Dharam Pal duty clerk reported that Sh. Harbans Singh D-771 was reinstated on 2.7.98 vide office order no.765/TA/CTU/98 dated 2.7.98 but he did not report for duty. He was informed by telegraphically "Being treated as absent join duty immediately" vide office letter no.1927 dated 22.7.98 and a copy of the same was also sent in confirmation vide Endst. No.1928/ECD/CTU-11/98 dated 2.7.98 wherein he was directed to produce medical certificate from CMO/PMO concerned in case of sickness but he failed to join duty. He was issued reminders for join duty vide no.2481 dated 14.9.98 and vide no.2997 dated 9.10.98 but he also failed to report for duty. Thus, Sh. Harbans Singh D-771 remained willfully absent from his duty w.e.f. 2.7.98 to onwards which amounts to grave misconduct on his part."
(3.) In pursuance to the inquiry proceedings having been initiated, a report dated 1.3.2001 was furnished by the Inquiry Officer holding the charge against the petitioner to be duly proved. Vide order dated 27.7.2001, passed by the Divisional Manager, C.T.U and Director, Transport, U.T., Chandigarh (Annexure P-4), the order of penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was passed. However, vide such order his absence period was directed to be treated as leave of the kind due. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of penalty was dismissed by the Home Secretary-cum-Secretary, Transport, Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 16.9.2005 at Annexure P-5. It is against such brief factual matrix that a demand notice was served upon the management against the order of penalty and upon reference having been made the impugned award dated 4.12.2012 has been passed.;