Chennai
Justice S M Subramaniam, before whom the plea moved by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited challenging the reinstatement order of R S Jesudoss came up, said, “The employee (Jesudoss) had remained unauthorisedly absent for about 328 days. Under these circumstances, no leniency can be shown, as the unauthorised absence continued for about 11 months. Thus, the principles laid down regarding this by the Supreme Court would apply and accordingly, the exercise of power by the labour court is improper and not in consonance with the gravity of the proved charges.”
As per the case, Jesudoss was employed as a conductor and he, without any prior permission or intimation, did not report for duty from 25.05.2011 onwards.
As the unauthorised absence is a misconduct as per the rules, a charge memo was issued to him on 14.06.2011. Subsequently, in the domestic enquiry held, the Transport corporation, on holding that the charges levelled against Jesudoss is proved, dismissed him from service.
The corporation also accounted for the aspect that Jesudoss had committed various offences on 13 separate occasions, including the misconduct of unauthorised absence in two separate occasions previously. Based on this, the employee raised an industrial dispute challenging the dismissal, and the labour court in Salem directed his reinstatement leading to TNSTC moving the high court.
However, Justice Subramaniam, on holding that the theory of proportionality can be considered only if the punishment is excessive and not otherwise, said, “The power is granted only to neutralise the injustice, if any caused, to the working class and not for extending any leniency or misplaced sympathy.
Once the grave charges/misconduct are proved beyond any doubt and the procedures contemplated are also followed scrupulously, then there is no reason to interfere with the quantum of punishment.”
The judge also noted that the concept of excessiveness may differ from one person to another person.
However, while exercising such powers, the courts must ensure that the reasons recorded for arriving to such a conclusion or modification of punishment or cancellation of punishment must be based on certain sound legal principles and the reasons offered be candid and convincing.
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android