N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 7.11.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, B.S. City, in reference case No. 6/96. The said award has answered the reference, which was in the following terms : "Whether the punishment of termination of services given to Sri Jatlu Karamkar, Welder -cum -Gas Cutter, Staff No. 273855, HRCF (O) Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City by the management is proper. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to -
(2.) THE case of the workman was that his 7 years old daughter was seriously ill and due to the same he had applied for leave from 7.2.1991. His daughter ultimately died on 24.2.1991 in Bokaro General Hospital. According to him he had personally handed over the leave application to his Controlling Officer stating the reasons for his inability to attend his duties but in spite of the same he was charge -sheeted for his absence. His explanation was not accepted and in the domestic enquiry he was erroneously held guilty and was dismissed from his services, by the Management. The case of the Management is that the services of the workman were to be governed by the certified standing order of the Company. Since the joining of the petitioner he had no interest in his work and he started absenting even without approval of the Management. He was a habitual absentee and earlier he was charge -sheeted five times for that. The Management has given the detail of the unauthorized absence. It has been stated that the workman was again absent from duty without any appropriate leave. He was given show -cause notice. The workman had submitted his reply but the same was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter Enquiry Committee was constituted. In the enquiry, he was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee had awarded punishment of dismissal also considering his antecedent. The concerned workman thereafter disputed the said decision which led to the said Reference Case. In course of hearing the Management and the concerned workman adduced their evidences. The Labour Court on appraisal of the evidences came to the finding that the workman was absent due to illness of his daughter and that his absence was not willful. It was also found that he was not a habitual absentee. Taking into consideration all the facts, material and evidence on record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the punishment awarded to the workman Jatlu Karamkar is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Labour Court thus set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed to re -instate the concerned workman by reducing the punishment to the stoppage of three increments and withholding of 75% of back wages.
(3.) MR . G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction as the Labour Court has relied on the evidences which are not admissible. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to independently consider the evidences and come to a different finding when he himself found that the domestic enquiry was free and fair. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. V/s. Uttam Manohar Nakate, reported in - - - - . It has been further submitted that in the case of Usha Beltron Ltd. V/s. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur it has been held that the interference with the finding recorded during the domestic enquiry is outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Labour Court is not an appellate Court and in that view the impugned award is wholly illegal. The Labour Court has entered into the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry on the basis of the evidences on record. Mr. Mishra, further submitted that in India Tourism Development Centre V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, X and Ors., reported in 2000 Lab IC 530, Delhi High Court has held that continued absentee of the workman makes him liable for punishment of dismissal on the basis of the past records.;