Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rasik Govind Mankar, was an employee of The Oberoi Towers since 1.4.1982, working as a utility worker in the Kitchen Stewarding department. He was absent from duty from 15.10.1996 to 12.1.1997, a period of 89 days, claiming he was suffering from mental depression and undergoing treatment. He resumed duty on 12.1.1997 and later produced a fitness certificate dated 15.4.1997. The respondent issued a chargesheet on 12.1.1997 for misconduct of 'absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days' under the standing orders. The petitioner filed a reply on 31.5.1997, and a domestic inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer submitted a report on 4.8.1998 recommending dismissal. A show cause notice was issued on 31.5.1996 (appears to be a typographical error, likely 1998) forwarding the findings. The disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the dismissal before the Industrial Court, which upheld the dismissal. The petitioner then filed a revision application, which was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 7.8.2002. The present writ petition challenges that order. The court considered whether the domestic inquiry was fair and proper, and whether the punishment was proportionate. The court found that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity. The court noted that the petitioner did not produce any medical certificate during the absence period, and the fitness certificate was produced after he had already resumed duty. The court also noted that the petitioner had a history of previous misconduct, and the employer had lost confidence in him. The court held that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unauthorized Absence - Dismissal - Domestic Inquiry - The petitioner employee was absent for 89 days without leave and was dismissed after a domestic inquiry. The court held that the inquiry was fair and proper, and the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence for more than 10 consecutive days under the Model Standing Orders. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Mental Illness - Absence - Medical Certificate - The petitioner claimed he was suffering from mental depression and produced a fitness certificate after resuming duty. The court noted that the petitioner did not produce any medical certificate during the absence period and the fitness certificate was produced after he had already resumed duty, which did not justify the absence. (Paras 2-5) C) Industrial Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Dismissal - The court held that the punishment of dismissal for unauthorized absence of 89 days was not disproportionate, as the petitioner had a history of previous misconduct and the employer had lost confidence in him. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of an employee for unauthorized absence of 89 days was justified, and whether the domestic inquiry was fair and proper.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Industrial Court dated 7.8.2002 is upheld, and the dismissal of the petitioner is confirmed.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 11A
- Model Standing Orders
- Unauthorized absence
- Mental illness
- Domestic inquiry
- Proportionality of punishment
