GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9th October, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1229/82 by which the termination of the respondent -workman from the services of the appellant -Industry Shri Ram Rayons Ltd. -now known as DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. was set aside and his reinstatement in service was ordered with 50% back wages only which was to be computed on the basis of the last salary drawn by him. Thus, the learned Single Judge had interfered with the award of the Labour Court which although held the dismissal of the workman as legal and justified, was pleased to award 10 months wages by way of compensation considering his long years of service.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent -workman was in the service of the appellant -Organisation as a Fitter after regular selection and while he was in service he remained absent from duty for 7 days on different dates without leave applications which was between August 1975 to February 1976. On previous occasions also, he had remained absent from duty on some days. The appellant - Organisation took a very strict view of 7 days unauthorised absence from duty by the respondent -workman and therefore, terminated his services after serving a charge sheet on him and after holding enquiry. The respondent -workman assailed the order of his termination before the Labour Court and the Labour Court although upheld the termination of the respondent -workman, granted him 10 months back wages on compassionate ground. The respondent -workman feeling aggrieved with the award of the Labour Court, filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge bearing SBCWP No. 1229/82 and assailed the award of the Labour Court essentially on two counts. The first ground of challenge to the impugned award was that the order of termination was bad in the eye of law as he had duly submitted the leave application before the competent authorities, but the same were not forwarded by the management in order to creat a case against him alleging his unauthorised absence from duty. The second ground of challenge to the order of termination was that even if the absence from duty by the respondent -workman could be considered unjustified, maximum punishment of termination of his services was not commensurate and was disproportionate to the charge alleged against him. The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the case and the counter case of the contesting parties was pleased to hold that the termination of the respondent -workman was bad in the eye of law and therefore ordered his reinstatement awarding 50% back wages only. This Special Appeal has been preferred against this Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge.
(3.) THE counsel for the appellant -Management Mr. Manoj Sharma has stressed hard to impress upon the Court that once the charge of unauthorised absence from duty was proved, even if it is restricted to a few days, the management was justified in passing the order of termination and in support of his submission he has relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Syndicate Bank v. The General Secretary Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Anr., 2000 LLR, 689, in order to buttress his contention that maximum penalty of termination was justified for authorised absence from duty. He has further urged that once the Labour Court exercised its discretion regarding the punishment to be awarded to him, the learned Single Judge ought not to. have exercised his discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for interfering with the award of the Labour Court. In support of his submission he has relied upon a Judgment delivered in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade etc., : (2005)ILLJ1129SC.;