Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Prem Narayan on 10 May, 2016
WP-7533-2014
(UNION OF INDIA Vs PREM NARAYAN)
10-05-2016
Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
Challenge in this petition is made to an order passed by
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur, in a dispute referred to it for
adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
Respondent-Prem Narayan was working as a Chowkidar
in the Establishment of West Central Railway, Bhopal. On account of unauthorized absence for a period of 5 months from 21.08.1985 to 29.01.1986 a charge-sheet has been issued to him. A departmental inquiry has been conducted and based on the basis of a finding recorded in the departmental enquiry he was dismissed from service.
He raised a dispute and failing conciliation the same was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal in question. The Tribunal framed various issues and decided the issue of validity of the departmental enquiry conducted by the department and the findings of the enquiry in the affirmative in favour of the employee but interfered with a punishment imposed exercising powers under Section 11(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore this writ petition by the employer.
Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that once the enquiry conducted against the workman is found to be legal and proper and the finding of guilty recorded by the enquiry officer to be correct then for the proved misconduct the action taken by the Railway Administration could not be interfered with and by interfering with the punishment imposed, it is said that an error has been committed.
She also emphasized that once the misconduct is proved and the same is accepted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal had no authority to interfere with quantum punishment and as this is impermissible under law, the interference by the Tribunal was not called for.
I have considered the aforesaid submssions made by Smt. Amrit Ruprah, and find that the only allegation leveled against the workman was to the effect that he was absence from 21.08.1985 to 29.01.1986 i.e. for a period of 5 months. The present respondent submitted that he was absent because he sustained a dog bite, he was not well and he sought sympathetic consideration. The Labour Court took note of the nature of misconduct, the subsequent fact of the workman having expired now his reinstatement would not possible, directed that the punishment of dismissal for the misconduct of absence for 5 months is not warranted in the facts and circumstance of the present case and after setting aside the order of dismissal, as the workman had expired on 28.7.1989 held that he be deemed to have expired while in service, he will not be entitled to any back wages and the family members would be entitled to such benefits as may available to them under the Department Rules deeming the employee to have died while in service. Accordingly, this order was passed exercising the power under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, this provision empowers the Labour Court, in a given case to interfere with the quantum of punishment and if required to award a lesser punishment.
Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:
âAfter finding that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may requireâ.
It is only this statutory power which has been exercised by the learned Tribunal and until and unless this exercise of power by the Tribunal is not found to be improper, not-justified or exercised in an arbitrary manner without any just cause or reason that interference is not required in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. That apart, the Supreme Court in the case of K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn. (2015) 12 SCC 39 has laid down the following terms and considerations of law with regard to Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
âIt is settled proposition of law that while considering the management's decision to dismiss or terminate the services of a workman, the Labour Court can interfere with the decision of the management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. Considering the delay in completing the enquiry and the age of the appellant and the fact that similarly situated workmen were reinstated with lesser punishment, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement in exercise of its discretion under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.â.
If the discretion exercised by the tribunal in the matter is analyzed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down in the case of K.V.S. Ram (Supra) this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be termed as unjust arbitrary warranting reconsideration by this Court. It is a reasonable exercise of power by learned Tribunal and this Court does not found error in the same warranting interference.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE