Labour Courts may reduce dismissal under Section 11A where unauthorized-absence punishment is disproportionate.

The deceased workman was employed as a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation since 1983.

The Corporation alleged that he remained absent without sanctioned leave for approximately 207 days between June and December 1991 and issued him a chargesheet on 19 September 1991.

Following a domestic enquiry, his services were terminated on 20 February 1992.

In the industrial dispute, the Labour Court held that the unauthorised absence and misconduct were proved, but exercised its powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) to modify the punishment from termination to compulsory retirement.

The DTC challenged only the reduction of punishment, contending that prolonged unauthorised absence justified termination.

The workman’s wife and son represented him before the High Court, and the workman had died during the proceedings.

Whether the Labour Court was justified in exercising its power under Section 11A of the ID Act to reduce the punishment from termination to compulsory retirement after upholding the charge of prolonged unauthorised absence?

Whether the Labour Court’s modification of punishment was arbitrary, perverse, or otherwise liable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Section 11A of the ID Act empowers a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal to grant appropriate relief, including substituting a lesser punishment, where discharge or dismissal is found unjustified in the circumstances of the case.

This power is discretionary but not unbridled, and may be exercised where the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct or mitigating circumstances justify interference.

Under Article 226, the High Court exercises supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction and should not substitute its own view for that of the Labour Court unless the decision is arbitrary or perverse.

DTC v. Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 574 establishes that habitual and prolonged unauthorised absence constitutes misconduct, but does not prescribe a uniform punishment or conclusively determine proportionality in every case.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134 holds that punishment cannot be reduced solely on vague compassionate grounds, particularly where the gravity of the misconduct and past misconduct have not been properly considered.

The High Court accepted that the charge of unauthorised absence for 207 days had been proved and that the workman had not established a valid justification for the absence.

However, the question was not whether the absence constituted misconduct, but whether termination was a proportionate punishment.

The Labour Court had considered that the workman had served the Corporation for over eight years without any prior chargesheet for misconduct, had produced an uncontested medical certificate relating to his absence, and had died during the proceedings due to illness; it also noted the Corporation’s failure to produce his attendance record.

These factors constituted relevant mitigating circumstances rather than mere sympathy.

The High Court distinguished Sardar Singh because that decision concerned the characterisation of prolonged unauthorised absence as misconduct and did not establish termination as the mandatory punishment.

It also distinguished Mahindra & Mahindra because, unlike that case, the Labour Court here had assessed proportionality and relevant mitigating circumstances.

Since the Labour Court’s view was plausible and neither arbitrary nor perverse, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226.

The punishment of termination was considered harsh and disproportionate in light of the workman’s length of service, absence of prior disciplinary action, medical material, illness, and other surrounding circumstances.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Labour Court’s award was left undisturbed.