B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) The respondent workman was working with the petitioner Corporation since 1977 as driver. On the charge of remaining absent from duty on February 7, 1983 and March 17, 1983, he was punished with stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. This was challenged before the Labour Court in reference by the respondent workman. The Labour Court found that for remaining absent from duty without prior sanction is a serious misconduct. Therefore, it was of the opinion that some punishment has to be imposed against the workman so that in future he may not indulge in this type of misconduct, therefore, for causing pecuniary loss to the Corporation the Labour Court ordered the workman to pay Rs. 4100/- to the Corporation in place of penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and accordingly the punishment was modified. This part of the award has been accepted by the workman, but challenged by the petitioner Corporation by way of this writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel Shri Lodha for the petitioner Corporation submitted that almost in identical case just two days before this Court took serious view of the matter regarding gross indiscipline prevailing amongst the drivers of the Corporation and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court interfering with the punishment awarded by the Corporation against the workman for remaining absent from duty.
(3.) It may be stated that each case has to be decided on facts of that case. It is true that I have not interfered with the order of punishment in a case where there was gross indiscipline and misconduct committed by the workman who refused to attend the duty, but that was not the only thing. In that case, he was found to be heavily drunk and though he was warned he did not listen to the authorities. He was also driving the bus in drunken condition and brought the bus late at the bus stand and when the officer came at the site he left the bus without permission and because of that two trips were cancelled. Whereas, in this case, from the award passed by the Labour Court it is clear that respondent workman was in service since 1977 and for all these years there was not a single complaint against him of similar nature. It may also be stated that for remaining absent from duty in this case the respondent workman has produced a medical certificate also. Considering all these aspects of the case and the fact that this was his first misconduct, if the Labour Court was of the opinion that the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was highly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the respondent workman and, therefore, modified the same by directing the respondent workman to pay Rs. 4100/- to the petitioner Corporation then in my opinion this Court should not interfere with such award in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;