Prathiba M. Singh JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. These are two petitions arising out of the impugned award dated 11th February, 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by which the Workman-Mr. Manmod Shankar was reinstated into service. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
"17-Having regard to the ratio of aforesaid rulings, coupled with gravity of the misconduct relating to unauthorized absence from duty by the claimant, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that the quantum of punishment awarded to the workman/claimant by the Management is disproportionate & excessively, high inasmuch as unauthorized absence from duty is not a kind of misconduct of moral turpitude or indulging in corrupt practices, warranting imposition of penalty of dismissal/removal from service. To my mind, ends of justice would be met if punishment of "removal from service" awarded against the claimant is set aside and he is ordered to be reinstated into service, however, without any pecuniary/monetary benefits during the intervening period i.e. from the date of his removal from service till publication of the Award. Award is passed accordingly."
As per the above award, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the punishment of termination awarded to the Workman was disproportionate and excessive. Accordingly, the Labour Court reinstated the Workman. At the same time, however, the pecuniary and monetary benefits for the intervening period i.e. from the date of his termination on 23rd July, 2016 till date of publication of award were not given. The above award was communicated to the appropriate Government and was published on 26th February, 2019.
2. The Workman joined the Life Insurance Corporation of India as an Assistant on 25th September, 1989. Chargesheet dated 30th July, 2015 was issued to him on the ground of unauthorised absence and on various other grounds. The said charge sheet was followed by a show cause notice and finally resulted into an enquiry and termination. The Workman filed two appeals before the Appellate Authority. The said appeals were rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the rejection of appeals on 6th January, 2017 he approached the Labour Court, which directed his reinstatement vide the impugned order.
3. On behalf of the LIC, the submission of Mr. Mohinder Singh, ld. counsel is that the Workman is a person who is habitually guilty of insubordination. He has been given at least three charge sheets-once in 2001, secondly in 2009 and thirdly in 2014. He never obeyed orders passed by his superiors. He also used to refuse to perform any of the duties which were allotted to him, and finally he was given the charge sheet dated 30th July 2015. The primary reason for which this charge sheet was issued, was that he was transferred from Branch 11-M at Shahdara to Branch 11-L at Narela and despite taking discharge from the Shahdara branch, he failed to join the Narela Branch. He sought to justify the non-joining by submitting a letter that he was suffering from an illness. In view of his long conduct of insubordination and non-performance of duties as also unauthorised absence, charge sheet dated 30th July, 2015 was issued.
4. After the charge sheet was issued, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the matter. The Workman failed to file a reply before the Officer. He appeared only on one occasion before the Officer on 15th October, 2015 and thereafter failed to appear. Upon the charges being proved against the Workman, show cause notice was issued to him on 12th April, 2016. He did not file a reply to the show cause notice, and finally the disciplinary authority, on 23rd July, 2016, gave the final order terminating h........