Full News
As HT terminated services without justification, compensation was awarded by HC.
As HT terminated services without justification, compensation was awarded by HC.
Gopal was Canteen Boy with M/s Hindustan Times. His services were terminated due to absenteeism. Labor court held, Gopal retrenched from service & awarded 2L as compensat'n. On writ HC modified award to 4L. On appeal for reinstatement, HC held, In year 2001 he was absent for 101 days out of which 80 days were without pay. In year 2003 he was absent for 106 days out of which 88 days were without pay. The misdemeanor is stark. Appeal Dismissed.
Facts in Brief:
1.Gopal, the appellant herein was appointed as a Canteen Boy with the respondent M/s Hindustan Times Limited, confirmed as Helper and later promoted to the post of Assistant Offset Machine Man.
2. Services of Gopal were terminated vide order on the ground that he had been absenting without leave and thus Gopal raised an industrial dispute on which a reference was made to the Labour Court.
3.Since no inquiry was held the learned Labour Court permitted the parties to lead evidence. Gopal proved his appointment letter and termination notice etc. The documents of Hindustan Times showing absence of Gopal from duty were held to be inadmissible in evidence and were thus not considered and the matter was decided in the light of the documents proved by Gopal.
4.The Labour Court held that Gopal was retrenched from the services however, instead of granting him reinstatement and back wages directed Hindustan Times to pay lump sum compensation of `2 lakhs to Gopal.
5.On writ petition, HC modified the award and directing Hindustan Times to pay a lump sum compensation of `4 lakhs which was in the nature of final settlement with regard to all the claims of Gopal like back wages, future wages, terminal benefits like gratuity etc.
On appeal, HC held as under:
6.On the facts of the instant case the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted keeping in view the fact that the appellant would have otherwise superannuated from service on March 08, 2013 when he turned 58 years of age. Thus, loss of service of the appellant is about 9 years.
7.It has to be kept in mind that in the year 1999 he was absent for 112 days out of which 86 days were without pay. In the year 2000 he was absent for 125 days out of which 98 days were without pay. In the year 2001 he was absent for 101 days out of which 80 days were without pay. In the year 2003 he was absent for 106 days out of which 88 days were without pay. The misdemeanour is stark.
8.Thus we find no error in exercise of the discretion by either the Labour Court or the learned Single Judge.
9. We find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed accordingly
