Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, an educational institution and its engineering college, challenged the judgment dated 28.02.2005 of the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. N22/2003. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.2, an employee, directing the petitioners to reinstate him with continuity and full back wages. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal misconstrued the nature of charges against the employee, who was habitual in absenting himself without prior permission despite verbal counselling and memos. The Tribunal erroneously treated the period of absence as leave without pay or break in service, thereby holding the disciplinary enquiry barred. The petitioners also contended that the award of full back wages was mechanical, without any supporting material. The employee did not appear before the High Court despite the matter being called out. The Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel, examined the memo dated 22.04.2003 which showed the allegation of habitual absence. The Court found that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly and that the order granting full back wages was unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's judgment, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - Absence Without Leave - Leave Without Pay - The employer challenged the Tribunal's order directing reinstatement with full back wages on the ground that the Tribunal failed to understand the nature of charges and erroneously held the disciplinary enquiry barred merely because the period of absence was treated as leave without pay or break in service. The Court found that the Tribunal did not properly exercise its jurisdiction. (Paras 1-4) B) Service Law - Back Wages - Full Back Wages - The employer contended that full back wages were granted mechanically without any material on record to support the demand. The Court noted that the employee did not appear to contest the petition. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the University and College Tribunal erred in allowing the employee's appeal and directing reinstatement with full back wages by treating the period of absence as leave without pay, thereby holding the disciplinary enquiry barred.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the judgment of the University and College Tribunal dated 28.02.2005, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Disciplinary enquiry not barred by treating absence as leave without pay
- Full back wages cannot be granted mechanically without evidence of entitlement
- Tribunal's failure to exercise jurisdiction properly
