W.P.(C) 9007/2017 $~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC014557282017 + W.P.(C) 9007/2017 & CM APPL. 36833/2017 CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate (through VC). versus SHIV PRASAD YADAV .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Punia, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 30.07.2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 06.05.2016 (‘impugned award’), passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court - II, Karkardooma Court Complex, Karkardooma, Delhi (‘Tribunal’), pursuant to which the learned Tribunal while agreeing with the petitioner management that the plea of illness taken by the respondent was not supported by any evidence and does not justify the absence of the workman from the work, held that the punishment awarded to the workman is justified. 2. The learned Tribunal, however, noting the argument that the misconduct does not entail major penalty modified the punishment of dismissal to that of removal. 3. The respondent in the present case is stated to have worked for more than 25 years before he was chargesheeted due to unauthorizedly remaining absent from the duties from 24.03.2006 onwards till 15.04.2006, i.e., the day when the chargesheet was issued. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:23:01 W.P.(C) 9007/2017 4. It was the case of the respondent that he had fallen ill due to which he could not join work. An inquiry was conducted which was proceeded ex-parte and the petitioner management, after recording of evidence of certain other officials, found that the respondent had failed to join work or follow instructions and had remained continuously absent from 24.03.2006. 5. The inquiry report was issued on 13.11.2006 thereby finding the conduct of the respondent to be gross misconduct in terms of the bipartite settlement. 6. Thereafter, in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the termination of the respondent was found to be justified. The learned Tribunal however, modified the punishment awarded to the respondent from dismissal to that of removal from work. Aggrieved by that limited aspect, the petitioner management has filed the present petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner management submits that the learned Tribunal without assigning any reason whatsoever has modified the punishment of dismissal to that of removal. He submits that the respondent’s misconduct was duly proved and the learned Tribunal has also upheld the inquiry report. He submits that in such circumstances the punishment of dismissal ought not to have been modified to removal of workman by taking a sympathetic view. He further submits that the impugned award is non speaking and is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has unblemished record of working more than 25 years and major penalty could not have been imposed for remaining absent for a few days. He submits that the impugned award is well reasoned This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:23:01 W.P.(C) 9007/2017 and warrants no interference by this Court. 9. I have heard the counsel and perused the record. 10. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ or direction in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and the Court ought not act as an appellate Court. This Court therefore cannot substitute its own view for the view taken by the tribunal unless the same is shown to be arbitrary or perverse. 11. The short question presented before this Court for adjudication is thus whether the learned Tribunal having found that the termination was correct, was justified in modifying the punishment from dismissal to that of removal. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the power of the tribunal to exercise its discretion to modify punishment. The only question thus remaining for this Court to examine is whether the same was justified in the facts of the present case. 13. Undisputedly, prior to availing unauthorized leave as stipulated in the chargesheet, the respondent had rendered 26 years of service. Thereafter, the respondent unauthorizedly remained absent from work from 24.03.2006 onwards till 15.04.2006, i.e., the day when the chargesheet was issued. While the respondent has attributed his absence to illness, as is borne out from the impugned award as well as the material on record, the same was not substantiated by contemporaneous medical record. On this count, the learned Tribunal while finding the termination of the respondent from work to be justified, had modified the punishment from dismissal to removal from work. 14. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:23:01 W.P.(C) 9007/2017 that the impugned award is non speaking and that the learned Tribunal has modified the punishment only on sympathetic considerations. It has consequently been urged that the same is liable to be set aside. 15. The argument advanced by the petitioner, though attractive at first blush, cannot be countenanced. 16. As noted above, the power of the tribunal to exercise its discretion to modify punishment has not been disputed. In doing so, the learned Tribunal is well within power to determine the proportionality of punishment and cannot be denuded of its authority to exercise discretion to mould relief in appropriate cases. The exercise of such discretion necessarily entails an examination of the gravity of misconduct vis-à-vis the other attendant circumstances. 17. In the present case, the respondent prior to his unauthorized absence had worked with the petitioner management for 26 years. Further, the learned Tribunal noted that during the pendency of the case, the respondent had already attained the age of superannuation and mere removal from service would have sufficed as a punishment for the gravity of misconduct attributed to the respondent. The learned Tribunal further noted that dismissal would compel the family members of the respondent to lead their lives in want of dues that would otherwise have been received by the respondent but for his dismissal. 18. In the present case, the learned Tribunal noting the argument that the misconduct does not entail major penalty had modified the punishment of dismissal to that of removal. 19. Merely because the learned Tribunal adverted to the consequences that the punishment would entail does not make the totality of the impugned award as vulnerable. As long as the tribunal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:23:01 W.P.(C) 9007/2017 is not oblivious of the gravity of the misconduct, the impugned award cannot be faulted with only because the tribunal hinted at compassionate grounds. 20. As noted above, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted only where the decision is demonstrably arbitrary or perverse. 21. In the facts of the present case, no such perversity or arbitrariness has been pointed out so as to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. The present writ petition thus, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 30, 2026/DU This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:23:01