BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE Vs. GAFFAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dt. 15.5.2010 insofar as it relates to exercise of discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act' to interfere with the order of dismissal to modify the punishment, to one of a lesser punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect without back wages and consequential benefits, but with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits not including increment, promotion, etc. has presented this petition.

(2.) There is no dispute that the respondent, a driver in the petitioner-Public Road Transport Corporation remained unauthorised absent from 2.3.2005 to 31.5.2006, for a year and two months, following which disciplinary proceeding was initiated, domestic enquiry held extending reasonable opportunity of hearing followed by a report holding the charge proved, resulting in the order dt. 19.7.2006 dismissing the respondent from service. It is also not in dispute that while in service during the period of nine years, the respondent was visited with minor punishments on six occasions for having remained absent intermittently for 207 days.

(3.) Before the Labour Court, the respondent-workman conceded to the validity of the domestic enquiry whence the preliminary issue was answered in the affirmative holding the enquiry as fair and proper. In the evidence let in by the respondent over victimisation, for the first time medical records were produced which do not constitute material on record over the justification for the absence of the respondent due to medical treatment. A perusal of those records disclose the respondent having undergone medical check and reports opining that he did not suffer from any illness. The respondent's assertions to have submitted leave applications when not accepted in the absence of acknowledged copies of leave applications, the Labour Court concluded that the charge of unauthorised absence for one year and two months was established. So also the Labour Court observed that the respondent remained intermittently absent. in the past for about 207 days whence he was visited with minor punishments/penalties on six occasions.