Madras High Court
The President, Cholan Pokkuvarathu ... vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 22 August, 1988
Equivalent citations: [1989(59)FLR488], (1989)IILLJ233MAD
JUDGMENT Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in W.P. 609 of 1979. That writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein against the award of the first respondent in I.D. 21 of 1977 in so far as it related to the workman T. Sambandam. The appellant Union is advancing the cause of the workman. T. Sambandam. I.D. 21 of 1977 covered a controversy with reference to a number of workmen, including the workman T. Sambandam, of the second respondent. The question of non-employment of the workmen, including the workman T. Sambandam, was put in issue before the first respondent and the first respondent found no warrant for interference with regard to the non-employment of the workman T. Sambandam by the second respondent and dismissed the reference so far as the said workman is concerned. In the writ petition and consequently in this writ appeal, the court is not troubled with the other parts of the award concerning the other workmen. The learned single judge, who heard the writ petition, though found that there is no detailed discussion of the relevant questions, yet, chose to accept the ultimate decision of the first respondent and dismissed the writ petition
2. Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that there was no discussion at all of the relevant materials by the first respondent in the impugned award with regard to the case against the workman T. Sambandam and in the impugned award, there is no proper advertence to the propriety or otherwise of the punishment, imposed on the said workman by the second respondent, and learned counsel for the appellant want us to frown upon this type of cursory reasonings expressed by the firs respondent, in the impugned award. On going through the impugned award of the first respondent. We are obliged to say that the grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is not without substance. Concerning the workman T. Sambandam, this is what the first respondent says in the impugned award "Serial No. 76 Thiru T. Sambandam, Conductor. The charge against him was that he did not issue 18 tickets and two half tickets all of 40 paise denomination in the bus MSQ 4157 plied on the route from Kolaiyar to Sirkali. A claim statement was filed by him contending that the enquiry was not proper. The charge was not substantiated and the punishment was excessive.
On perusal of the enquiry report and documents filed and also the evidence both oral and documentary, I find that the Enquiry Officer had come to a right conclusion. I do not find his conclusion is perverse. As regards punishment, as it is a serious misconduct of misappropriating the Corporation's amount, the punishment of dismissal is correct."
3. The learned single Judge chose to accept the above discussion of the first respondent as satisfactory and not calling for interference, and the learned single Judge expressed his reasons as follows -
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this order is bereft of reasons and except to state that the Enquiry Officer has come to the right conclusion and the punishment of dismissal is correct there is no other reason given in the order. It is true that there is no detailed discussion. But having regard to the fact that the claim relating to Sambandam was discussed along with a number of persons, the Tribunal did not devote much time for consideration of this claim of the petitioner. But I am not satisfied that the order is liable to be set aside. What is now relevant is that the Tribunal was satisfied that there was a proper enquiry, that the oral and documentary evidence support the finding of the Enquiry Officer and it is in those circumstances the Tribunal said that the enquiry office had come to the right conclusion. Even on the question of punishment, the Tribunal has clearly stated that it is a serious misconduct of misappropriation and that therefore the punishment is correct. In the circumstances, there is nothing for this Court to interfere in exercise of power under Art. 226 of the Constitution."
4. The view of the learned single judge is the subject matter of criticism by the learned counsel for the appellant and he complains that the reasons expressed by the learned single judge run contrary to the well accepted principles regarding powers of Tribunals like the first respondent, while adjudicating disputes over non-employment of workmen.
5. The question put in issue before the first respondent related to the justification or otherwise of the non-employment of the workman T. Sambandam by the second respondent. After the introduction of Section 11-A into the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal can not only consider whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also to differ from the said finding, if a proper case is made out. What was once in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer, has now come within the purview of the powers of the Tribunal. There is a power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same, conferred on the Tribunal. Section 11-A was brought in because of the felt needs of the time and this benevolent power must be exercised in the spirit in which the provision has been enacted. The above is the sum and substance of the principles to be gleaned from the pronouncement of the highest court in the land. The powers vested in the Tribunal are concrete and the Tribunal must be conscious of the same and must endeavour to exercise the powers with sincerity. The scope and amplitude of the exercise of the powers will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Here again, ample guidance has been provided by the pronouncements of Courts, including the highest in the land. The first respondent as well could see from the extracts of the relevant portion of the impugned award made above has obviously lost sight of the above principles and we must say that he has failed to exercise the power in its true perspective and has made a mockery of such exercise of power. It is true the first respondent was obliged to discuss the cases of other workmen along with the case of the workman T. Sambandam. But, on this account, there is no justification either to omit to discuss or gloss over the relevant materials on record on the moot questions, concerning the said workman. There has got to be an independent advertence to all the relevant materials and aspects exposed in the case to find out the justification or otherwise for the non-employment of the workman, T. Sambandam, and further more, there has got to be a consideration of the question as to whether the punishment imposed is proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. There is a complaint that the past record or service of the workman was not at all looked into on the question of punishment. No room for such complaint ought to have been given. We find that the first respondent did not adhere to the well-accepted principles of adjudication of questions like the present one and this feature obliges us to interfere in writ appeal. We are not able to subscribe our support to the reasonings expressed by the learned single Judge that the discussion by the first respondent having taken in cases of a number of other workmen, would absolve the first respondent from his obligation to discuss the case of the workman. T. Sambandam with reference to the materials relating to him. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned single Judge, and allowing W.P. 609 of 1979, thereby quashing the award the award in I.D. 21 of 1977 in so far as it related to the workman, T. Sambandam and the matter will stand remitted to the file of the first respondent for him to consider the same afresh, avoiding the infirmities noted by us above and which alone obliged us to interfere. We make no order as to costs.