High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, N.Rly. v. D.P. Awasthi and another - WRIT - C No. 8584 of 1989  RD-AH 851 (21 September 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8584 of 1989
The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, N. Rly. Vs. D.P. Awasthi
Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.
Heard Sri Lalji Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
1. The facts of the case in brief are that the workman-Nisar Ahmad who was highly skilled Grade II Welder was sanctioned leave on average pay with effect from 22.10.1977 to 21.4.1978 for going to Saudi Arabia on Haj pilgrimage. Although, he was to resume duty on 22.4.1978, he unauthorizedly absented himself after expiry of the said leave. On his return from Haj pilgrimage, he was handed over a charge sheet (SF-V) of major penalty, and ultimately, after the departmental disciplinary enquiry was completed, he was removed from services with effect from 14.10.1981. A dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Kanpur. The case of the workman was espoused by Sri D.P. Awasthi, Divisional Secretary, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union, Lucknow.
2. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workman had joined his services on 9.8.1945 and was due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.1983 and he had qualified himself for terminal benefits by 7.5.1979. Since, Sri D.P. Awasthi on behalf of the workman had not demanded any salary for the period after 14.10.1981, the Tribunal was of the view that it was a fit case and in the interest of justice it should intervene and reduce the punishment awarded to the workman since it was too harsh and excessive, though the enquiry against the workman was conducted fairly and properly and in accordance with principles of natural justice. The tribunal reduced the punishment to the extent that the period from 7.5.1979 till the date of his retirement, the workman shall be treated as on leave without pay without his right to claim increment in the salary during the said period.
3. This writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that once the tribunal came to the conclusion that the enquiry against the workman had been conducted fairly and properly and in accordance with principles of natural justice it had no jurisdiction to reduce the punishment awarded to the workman by the employer.
4. I have gone through the entire record of the case. It is settled law that the labour Court or the Tribunal is empowered to look into and consider the question of the quantum of punishment, and if it so finds that it has been awarded in excess then it has the jurisdiction to reduce the same as it thinks fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
In view of this, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
September 21, 2004
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.