Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Technician for Habitual Absenteeism, Says Imposition Of Punishment Is ‘Managerial’ Function
Dismissing a plea of reinstatement of a former Technician of Bhilai Metal Plant, whose companies have been terminated on account of ordinary absence from responsibility, the Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket has held that imposition of punishment in disciplinary issues is a managerial operate which doesn’t warrant interference by the Court docket except the punishment appears patently stunning.
For context— petitioner remained absent from service for 140 days, from 01.05.1994 to 17.09.1994, with out sanctioned go away from the Administration. Previous to this too, he remained absent for which he had been punished on three events. The tenure of the petitioner was solely eight years whereby he had been punished on a number of events earlier than issuance of the order of termination.
Upholding the punishment of termination as proportionate, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas held,
“…report of the case clearly establishes that the petitioner is ordinary absentee and he remained absent for 140 days, I’m of the view that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct dedicated by him. Even in any other case it’s properly settled place of regulation that the imposition of punishment is managerial operate of the administration and except the punishment is so stunning or touches the aware of the Court docket it shouldn’t be interfered by the Court docket.”
Information:
The Court docket was coping with a writ petition difficult an appellate order dated 29.04.2011 (impugned order) handed by the State Industrial Court docket, Raipur, which affirmed an order handed by the Labour Court docket dated 09.10.2006— that had upheld the termination of service of the petitioner.
On account of petitioner being absent for 140 days from 01.05.1994 to 17.09.1994, with out sanctioned go away from Administration, a departmental inquiry was carried out and his companies have been terminated vide order dated 18.08.1995.
Praying for reinstatement and claiming that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and that the inquiry was carried out in violation of rules of pure justice, the petitioner approached the Labour Court docket. Whereas the Labour Court docket vitiated the Departmental Inquiry on account of violation of rules of pure justice, it later upheld the termination of petitioner’s service, holding it to be proportionate to the misconduct.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Industrial Court docket, which held that— the punishment of termination was proportionate, and that the applying was barred by limitation because it had been most well-liked on 24.04.2003, 8 years after the termination.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Excessive Court docket, the place he argued that the Courts beneath dedicated illegality in recording that his software was barred by limitation as he had already most well-liked enchantment earlier than the involved appellate authorities, which have been but to be determined. He additional argued that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Quite the opposite, the Managing Director, Bhilai Metal Plant (Respondent 1) justified the punishment on account of the petitioner being on unsanctioned go away for 140 days, claiming it to be a significant misconduct as per the Licensed Standing Orders of the corporate.
Thus, two pertinent points have been tabled for the Court docket’s consideration— firstly— whether or not the Industrial Court docket and Labour Court docket have been justified in dismissing the applying most well-liked by the petitioner as barred by limitation, and secondly— whether or not the punishment of termination for continued absenteeism was proportionate to the misconduct.
Court docket’s Findings:
To look at the problem of limitation, the Court docket referred to Part 62 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act (CGIR Act), which lays down particular limitation intervals for initiating industrial dispute proceedings earlier than the Labour Court docket, and (ii) Part 29 of the Limitation Act, which clarifies that the final limitation guidelines apply to particular or native legal guidelines except expressly excluded by such legal guidelines. In mild of those provisions, the Court docket held,
“From naked perusal of Part 29 of the Limitation Act, it’s fairly vivid that there isn’t any particular exclusion of provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 and Part 4 to 24 each would apply. From the provisions of Part 62 of the C.G.I.R. Act, it’s fairly vivid that if the legislature intends to exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act it might have mentioned so in a particular time period. Even in any other case, the C.G.I.R. is a benevolent and useful statute, in absence of categorical and unequivocal mandate by the legislature it will not be acceptable to state {that a} declare of an worker can be thrown over boat as he has not approached the Labour Court docket inside the timeframe and in view of no exclusion of limitation Act, it’s relevant to the proceedings earlier than the Labour Court docket.”
Including that provisions of Part 5 of the Limitation Act shall be relevant within the proceedings underneath Part 62 of CGIR Act, the Single Decide noticed,
“…it’s fairly vivid that the petitioner has most well-liked the enchantment earlier than the administration which was pending thereafter, he has filed the applying earlier than the Administration which has not been determined, as such, it can’t be held that the applying is barred by limitation, thus each the Courts beneath have dedicated illegality in dismissing the applying most well-liked by the petitioner on the rely of delay and latches. Accordingly, Level No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner.”
With respect to the problem of the punishment of termination being proportionate, the Court docket referred to Gujarat Electrical energy Board & One other vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani [1989 (2) SCC 602], the place the Supreme Court docket had held that no Authorities servant or worker of any public enterprise has a proper to be absent from responsibility with out sanction of go away, merely on account of pendency of illustration in opposition to the order of switch.
Thus, the Court docket held,
“…it’s fairly vivid that each the Courts beneath have dedicated illegality in holding the applying to be barred by limitation, however has not dedicated any illegality or irregularity in recording its discovering that the petitioner remained absent for 140 days and he has additionally previous antecedents of remaining absent for which he has been punished on so many events which clearly establishes that he’s ordinary of remaining absent from responsibility. As such, punishment of removing from service imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the misconduct dedicated by him.”
Accordingly, the Court docket dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
Case Particulars:
Case Quantity: WPL No. 5110 of 2011
Case Title: M. Mohan Rao v. Managing Director, Bhilai Metal Plant, Tahsil & District Durg (CG)
