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 Steel Plant, whose services were terminated on account of habitual absence from duty, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that imposition of punishment in disciplinary matters is a managerial function which does not warrant interference by the Court unless the punishment seems patently shocking.For context— petitioner...
Dismissing a plea of reinstatement of a former Technician of Bhilai Steel Plant, whose services were terminated on account of habitual absence from duty, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that imposition of punishment in disciplinary matters is a managerial function which does not warrant interference by the Court unless the punishment seems patently shocking.
For context— petitioner remained absent from service for 140 days, from 01.05.1994 to 17.09.1994, without sanctioned leave from the Management. Prior to this too, he remained absent for which he had been punished on three occasions. The tenure of the petitioner was only eight years wherein he had been punished on several occasions before issuance of the order of termination.
Upholding the punishment of termination as proportionate, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas held,
“…record of the case clearly establishes that the petitioner is habitual absentee and he remained absent for 140 days, I am of the view that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. Even otherwise it is well settled position of law that the imposition of punishment is managerial function of the management and unless the punishment is so shocking or touches the conscious of the Court it should not be interfered by the Court.”
Facts:
The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 29.04.2011 (impugned order) passed by the State Industrial Court, Raipur, which affirmed an order passed by the Labour Court 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, without sanctioned leave from Management, a departmental inquiry was conducted and his services were 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 conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner approached the Labour Court. While the Labour Court vitiated the Departmental Inquiry on account of violation of principles of natural 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, which held that— the punishment of termination was proportionate, and that the application was barred by limitation as it had been preferred on 24.04.2003, 8 years after the termination.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, where he argued that the Courts below committed illegality in recording that his application was barred by limitation as he had already preferred appeal before the concerned appellate authorities, which were yet to be decided. He further argued that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
On the contrary, the Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant (Respondent 1) justified the punishment on account of the petitioner being on unsanctioned leave for 140 days, claiming it to be a major misconduct as per the Certified Standing Orders of the company.
Thus, two pertinent issues were tabled for the Court's consideration— firstly— whether the Industrial Court and Labour Court were justified in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner as barred by limitation, and secondly— whether the punishment of termination for continued absenteeism was proportionate to the misconduct.
Court's Findings:
To examine the issue of limitation, the Court referred to Section 62 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act (CGIR Act), which lays down specific limitation periods for initiating industrial dispute proceedings before the Labour Court, and (ii) Section 29 of the Limitation Act, which clarifies that the general limitation rules apply to special or local laws unless expressly excluded by such laws. In light of these provisions, the Court held,
“From bare perusal of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, it is quite vivid that there is no specific exclusion of provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 4 to 24 both would apply. From the provisions of Section 62 of the C.G.I.R. Act, it is quite vivid that if the legislature intends to exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act it could have said so in a specific term. Even otherwise, the C.G.I.R. is a benevolent and beneficial statute, in absence of categorical and unequivocal mandate by the legislature it would not be appropriate to state that a claim of an employee would be thrown over boat as he has not approached the Labour Court within the time frame and in view of no exclusion of limitation Act, it is applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court.”
Adding that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be applicable in the proceedings under Section 62 of CGIR Act, the Single Judge observed,
“...it is quite vivid that the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the management which was pending thereafter, he has filed the application before the Management which has not been decided, as such, it cannot be held that the application is barred by limitation, thus both the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner on the count of delay and latches. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner.”
With respect to the issue of the punishment of termination being proportionate, the Court referred to Gujarat Electricity Board & Another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani [1989 (2) SCC 602], where the Supreme Court had held that no Government servant or employee of any public undertaking has a right to be absent from duty without sanction of leave, merely on account of pendency of representation against the order of transfer.
Thus, the Court held,
“…it is quite vivid that both the Courts below have committed illegality in holding the application to be barred by limitation, but has not committed any illegality or irregularity in recording its finding that the petitioner remained absent for 140 days and he has also past antecedents of remaining absent for which he has been punished on so many occasions which clearly establishes that he is habitual of remaining absent from duty. As such, punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
Case Details:
Case Number: WPL No. 5110 of 2011
Case Title: M. Mohan Rao v. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Tahsil & District Durg (CG)