Karnataka High Court
Mr.M.G.Guruhari vs The Management Of R V College Of ... on 12 September, 2024
-1-
WA 807 OF 2022 &
WA 1222 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WA NO. 807 OF 2022 (L-TER)
AND
WA NO. 1222 OF 2022 (L-TER)
WA NO. 807 OF 2022 (L-TER)
[IN WP NO. 2137/2017 (L-TER)]
BETWEEN:
MR. M.G.GURUHARI,
C/O KARNATAKA TRADE UNION CENTRE,
NO.43, MIG, 2ND FLOOR,
2ND PHASE, KHB COLONY,
BASAVESWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 079. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.LAXMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
R.V. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 059,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WA 807 OF 2022 &
WA 1222 OF 2022
WA NO. 1222 OF 2022 (L-TER)
[IN WP NO. 8674/2014 (L-TER)]
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
R.V. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 059,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
MR.M.G. GURUHARI,
C/O KARNATAKA TRADE UNION CENTRE,
NO.43, MIG, 2ND FLOOR,
2ND PHASE, KHB COLONY,
BASAVESWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 079.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.LAXMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ANUSHA.L, ADVOCATE)
THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.8674/2014 (L-TER) AND SUBSEQUENTLY GRANT THE
RELIEFS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN WP NO.2137/2017
(L-TER), ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED ON
13.06.2024 FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
-3-
WA 807 OF 2022 &
WA 1222 OF 2022
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) These appeals have been filed by the appellant/ M.G. Guruhari challenging the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions being WP No.8674/2014 and WP No.2137/2017. The WP No.8674/2014 was filed by the respondent-employer and WP No.2137/2017 was filed by the appellant/workman herein. The parties i.e., Sri. M.G.Guruhari and the College shall be referred to as appellant and respondent, respectively.
2. The challenge before the learned Single Judge was to an award dated 14.11.2013 in ID No.134/2007, whereby the Industrial Tribunal ('Tribunal' in short) has answered the reference made by the Government by stating that the respondent was not justified in compulsory retiring the appellant. It directed that the appellant shall be entitled for all the consequential monetary and other benefits.
3. The challenge of the respondent in WP No.8674/2014, to the award, was on the ground that it is perverse and contrary to the law and precedents. -4-
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 Whereas, the challenge of the appellant to the award in WP.No.2137/2017 was on the ground that the operative portion of the award lacks clarity and that the Tribunal should have in specific terms set aside the award and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant with full back wages, continuity of services and all other consequential benefits.
4. It may be stated here, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Tribunal, thereby allowed WP No.8674/2014 and dismissed WP No.2137/2017.
5. Some of the facts which are required to be noted for the purpose of deciding these appeals are, the respondent is an Educational Institution imparting education in Engineering since 1963. The appellant was appointed as Typist in the respondent-Organization on 01.07.1979. The respondent issued a charge sheet -cum- show-cause notice dated 03.07.2003 to the appellant wherein the allegations made against the appellant were the following:
" (i) On 07.03.2003, the respondent issued blank railway concession forms to a student by name -5- WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 Sohaib Akhtar without obtaining signature of the Principal which led to withdrawal of the railway concession to the college students;
(ii) On 22.03.2003 the respondent did not carry out ledger print out work assigned to him by Ganapathi Aithal the Account Superintendent. When questioned, the respondent behaved with him rudely and abused him in un-parliamentary language;
(iii) On 20.05.2003 taking exception for sending his service book to Rastreeya Shikshana Samithi Trust, the respondent threatened D.S.Raghavendra another staff of the institution if they fail to get back the book within 24 hours, assaulted and abused him and his parents in foul language."
6. Pending departmental enquiry on the aforesaid charges, the respondent issued another charge sheet to the appellant dated 12.01.2005 for the following misconducts:
"(i) On 21.07.2004, when an examination was being conducted, the respondent was required to submit the absentees statement in Form-A, but he did not submit the same within the required time with, lame excuses. When K.N.Raja Rao, the Chief Superintendent of Examination questioned that, the respondent behaved rudely and arrogantly with him indulging in argumentation and shouting;-6-
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022
(ii) On 28.10.2004 the respondent was deployed to work in IEM Department under R.Shekar, Foreman. The respondent failed to locate the sanction papers relating to STTP on World Class Management Practices in professional institutions. When Mr.R.Shekar questioned that, without complying the work the respondent behaved arrogantly with Mr.R.Shekar.
(iii) The respondent without permission left the office at 12.30 noon on 08.11.2004 and remained absent from duty on 09.11.2004 unauthorizedly. On reporting to duty on 10.11.2004, the respondent tampered the attendance register entering as 'signed' against the entry dated for 08.11.2004 and 'CL' for 09.11.2004."
7. In sum and substance, the allegations against the appellant were the following:
"(a) Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order of his superior;
(b) Theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property;
(c) Habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than ten days;
(d) Riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours of the establishment or any act subversive of discipline;-7-
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022
(e) Habitual negligence or neglect of work; &
(f) Dereliction of duty."
8. The appellant had submitted his reply to the above charges. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry in both the charge sheets. After holding enquiry, insofar as the charge sheet dated 03.07.2003 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, wherein he held that charge Nos.1 and 2 as proved and charge No.3 as not proved; insofar as charge sheet dated 12.01.2005 is concerned, he held charge No.1 as not proved and charge No.2 as proved. In both the enquiries, the appellant filed his defence statement. The appellant cross-examined the respondent's witnesses and led his evidence.
9. After the receipt of the enquiry report, the respondent issued second show-cause notice to the appellant regarding acceptance of enquiry reports and imposition of penalty. The appellant submitted his reply to the same, which was rejected by the respondent, who accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant. -8-
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022
10. It is this penalty which became the subject matter of reference of the appropriate Government to the Tribunal, Bengaluru, as to, whether the respondent was justified in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the appellant?
11. The Tribunal has listed the matter for evidence on victimization. The parties led the evidence on the aforesaid aspect. Then the Tribunal, vide its award dated 14.11.2013, held that the respondent is not justified in compulsory retiring the appellant and he is entitled to all the consequential monetary and other benefits.
12. The case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was also that, Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) applies only to the case of dismissal or discharge and not for compulsory retirement. The case was also that the dispute was not espoused collectively. Therefore, the reference itself is not maintainable.
13. It was also the case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge that once the enquiry is held to be fair -9- WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 and proper, the Tribunal has to decide the quantum of punishment unless there is an allegation of victimization or unfair labour practice. The respondent denied there was any victimization or unfair labour practice. It was the case of the respondent that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The respondent relied upon 12 judgments in support of its case before the learned Single Judge.
14. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was, the ground of maintainability of the reference under Section 11A of the Act or Section 2A of the Act was not raised before the Tribunal. Moreover, compulsory retirement also amounts to termination. Therefore, it amounts to Industrial Dispute and an individual workman can challenge that. The appellant had pleaded victimization in his claim statement as well as in his evidence. It was also pleaded, if the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, the Tribunal can set aside the punishment. It was also the case of the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have passed the order/award in clear
- 10 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 terms for reinstatement, back wages and continuity of service, etc. As the respondent did, the appellant also relied upon certain judgments in support of his case.
15. We note, the learned Single Judge held that the order of the Tribunal and the enquiry reports are perverse, contrary to the material on record and at variance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others - Vs.- Ajai Kumar Srivastava [(2021) 2 SCC 612].
16. Insofar as the plea of the maintainability of the reference/petition under Section 11A of the Act and the cause was not espoused by a union is concerned, the learned Single Judge by relying upon the judgment of Patna High Court in Mahabir -Vs.- D.K. Mittal [1979 IILLJ 363 PAT] held that the order of compulsory retirement amounts to termination and that it will amount to retrenchment within the meaning of the Act and as such, maintainable. It rejected the plea on behalf of the respondent. In any case, in view of the finding that the impugned order and award of the Tribunal is contrary to the material on record, the learned Single Judge has
- 11 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 allowed WP No.8674/2014 filed by the respondent and dismissed WP No.2137/2017 filed by the appellant. Submissions:
17. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is, the appellant was under suspension in both the enquiries with effect from 19.11.2004. The dates of enquiry report are 31.03.2006 and 10.04.2006 respectively. The date of order of compulsory retirement of the appellant is, 08.08.2006. According to him, the proceedings should have been concluded within a period of 6 months and in any case not after one year as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali -Vs.- High Court of Delhi [(2015) 16 SCC 415], whereas in the case in hand, it continued for more than two years.
18. Learned counsel also submits that the order of suspension also cannot go beyond 3 months and as such the workman is entitled to full salary till the date of punishment, which has been set aside. Suspension allowance up to 6 months was paid at 50% and till
- 12 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 dismissal at 60%. The continuation of the suspension order without a review beyond 3 months is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary -Vs.- Union of India and Another [(2015) 7 SCC 291].
19. It is also his submission that, even the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the charges which have been framed against the appellant are contrary to the record, is justified. In this regard, he has stated that insofar as the charges which have been framed against the appellant vide notices dated 03.07.2003 and 12.01.2005 are concerned, the first and second notices of charges are as follows:
A) 03.07.2023 (First Notice of Charges):
"I. The 1st notice of charges are as follows;
Regarding issue of Railway Concession Form to a student. That the Form was filled and signed by the issuing clerk without a Principal signature with a good faith.
• It is only Forms are filled and signed by the office it was the responsibility of the student to take the signature of the Principal finally. Blank Form would be signed by the Principal, on the other hand, it is vice versa.
I. CHARGE-II- Regarding refusal of work in the Accounts Section.
- 13 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 II. CHARGE-III - Abusing superior officers with foul and filthy language threatening superior officers with dire consequences.
B) 12.01.2005 (Second notice of charges):
II. 2nd Departmental Enquiry held between 12.01.2005 and 16.08.2005.
Charge- I The subject matter of the 1st of the Charge Sheet-cum-Showcause notice dated 12.01.2005 was that the CSE was entrusted to carry out the work of typing of Form 'A' for the examination held in the afternoon session on 21.07.2004 but, he did not submit the absentee statement event at 4.45 p.m. on the other hand behaved rudely and arrogantly with the Principal, the Chief Superintendent of examination, when they enquired about the said delay".
Suffice to state the above charge was not proved.
• Charges -II and III The subject matter of the second and third charges of the Charge Sheet-cum-Show Cause notice dated 12.01.2005 are that the CSE Mr. M. G. Guruhari, did not carry out the work on 28.10.2004 in the IEM department as instructed by Mr.R. Shekar, foreman, but behaved arrogantly with him. The CSE on 08.11.2004 left the office at around 12.30 p.m., without informing his supervisors and also without signing the attendance register and did not attend the duty on 09.11.2004. The CSE had tampered the attendance register on reporting to duty on 10.11.2004 by putting his signature in the attendance register for the after noon session on 08.11.2004.
- 14 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022
20. In substance, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is, even if the departmental enquiries are held to be fair and proper, still in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Workmen -Vs.- M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. and Others and connected matters [(1973) 1 SCC 813], the power vests with the Tribunal to satisfy itself that misconduct is proved. According to him, the Tribunal has also the power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer if it is shockingly disproportionate. In other words, the Tribunal has to satisfy itself one way or the other regarding misconduct and the punishment. The relief to be granted to workmen is only on the basis of the material on record before it and not beyond it.
21. The submission is also that, the past record should be part of the charge sheet i.e., at the first stage of enquiry, otherwise it cannot be looked into at the second stage, that is at the time of punishment. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore -Vs.- K.
- 15 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 Manche Gowda [1963 SCC Online SC 50], more specifically paragraph No.7 thereof.
22. It is also his submission, sufficiency/relevancy of evidence is not a ground to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob -Vs.- K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others [AIR 1964 SC 477].
23. He also stated, the power under Section 11A is equitable in nature and exercisable keeping in mind the object of the Act as a social welfare legislation and also keeping in mind part-IV of the Constitution. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jasmer Singh -Vs.- State of Haryana and Another [(2015) 4 SCC 458], which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of K.V.S. Ram -Vs.- Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39].
24. In other words, the submission is, what the Labour Court can do under Section 11A of the Act, a Writ Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
- 16 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 India can exercise such power if the award is based on misconception of law or it is based on no evidence, as held by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Others -Vs.- Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others [(1980) 2 SCC 593]. It is also his submission that once an order of dismissal is set aside, granting of consequential benefits is mandatory as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase - Vs.-Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Others [(2013) 10 SCC 324].
25. His challenge to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is, in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the power to re- appreciate findings in the award of the Industrial Tribunal is not permissible when Industrial Tribunal records such findings in favour of the workman. The Writ Court cannot reverse the award of the Tribunal on the ground that there is evidence to sustain the charges or on the ground of sufficiency of evidence. It is his endeavor to state, the learned Single Judge could not have re-appreciated a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Such power is
- 17 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 not available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in view of the judgment in Syed Yakoob's case (supra). He seeks the reliefs as prayed for in the writ appeal. In addition to the judgments referred to above, the counsel for appellant has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta -Vs.- Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. [(1984) 2 SCC 569].
26. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent justifies the order of the learned Single Judge in as much as the Tribunal was not right to hold that there is a victimization of the appellant herein, more so, during cross-examination of the appellant, the Advocate of the respondent confronted the appellant with Ex.M14 to M110 which are various memos issued to the appellant which clearly demonstrate that the past record of the appellant was full of blemishes. He stated that though the Tribunal held that these documents were not produced before the Enquiry Officer as the Management did not rely on the same before the Enquiry Officer, but in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in KSRTC - Vs.- A. Ramanna [ILR 2001 Karnataka 2914] it is
- 18 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 clear, when the workman has been issued memos earlier, the question of workman being ignorant of the same does not arise and there is no question of victimization. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that, even the case of the appellant that the student Sohaib Akhtar, to whom the blank railway concession form was issued by the appellant was not examined, is concerned, the said aspect has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.25 of the impugned order by holding that when the appellant tried to justify or explain his conduct of issuing unsigned forms, as per basic rule of evidence, burden was on him to prove the said fact and not the respondent. He stated, the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge should not have re-appreciated the evidence on record and come to a different conclusion, is a misplaced submission. According to him, the same has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge by relying upon the judgment in the case of Ajai Kumar Srivastava (supra) and as such, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge is not an erroneous conclusion. The counsel laid stress on the fact that the appellant was
- 19 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 compulsorily retired on 08.08.2006, when the age of the appellant was 52 years and had put in 27 years of service, which is justified. According to him, as is clear from the charges as well as the past record, the appellant was in the habit of disobedience of orders and as such insubordination to the superiors. It was very difficult for the Supervisors to expect normal conduct and get the work done from the appellant. He also urges the fact, the appellant having attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012, as such, there is no question of reinstatement of the appellant in the services. He also stated, the appellant had been paid an amount of Rs.1,44,289/- (gratuity of Rs.1,40,712/- and encashment of leave Rs.3,577/-). So, according to him, the order of the learned Single Judge is justified and there is no reason to give reinstatement to the appellant with full back wages, continuity of services and all other consequential benefits. In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Ajai Kumar Srivastava (supra).
- 20 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 Analysis:
27. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the issue which arises for consideration is, whether the learned Single Judge is right in interfering with the findings of the Tribunal which had exonerated the appellant and thereby setting aside the award of the Tribunal?
28. At the outset, it may be stated that on perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal had framed an issue on the fairness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry relating to the charge sheets dated 03.07.2003 and also 12.01.2005. The Tribunal though has empathetically held that both the enquiries were conducted in a fair and proper manner, but it has also in paragraphs No.56 and 57, held as under:
"56. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the II Party Management. In this case, this Tribunal has held that the Domestic Inquiry held against the I Party Workman is fair and proper. This Tribunal has only to see whether the findings given by the Inquiry Officer are perverse, whether the evidence adduced before him is considered in proper perspective. None of these documents were produced before the Inquiry Officer nor these
- 21 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 documents were relied upon by the II Party Management, during the Domestic Inquiry. By producing these documents before this Tribunal it is not open to contend that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse, because these documents were not produced before the Inquiry Officer and the I Party workman was not given an opportunity to meet these documents during Domestic Inquiry by supplying copies of the same. I may also mention here that these documents are not properly proved: During the cross examination these documents were shown to I Party workman and the same have been marked. In the cross-examination, neither the I Party workman has admitted nor has denied these documents. These documents should have been marked only if the I Party workman-had admitted these documents. These documents are marked by only showing the same to the I Party workman. I am of the opinion that these documents are not properly proved. These documents cannot be taken into consideration for this reason and for the reasons mentioned above.
57. The evidence on record also shows that at the
-relevant time, the wife of I Party workman was suffering from heart ailment and ultimately in the year 2004 she passed away. Meanwhile, he was also made to vacate the quarters allotted to him. The first inquiry was commenced by issuing articles of charges dated:
3.7.2003 and the second inquiry was initiated two years thereafter by issuing Ex.M8 charge sheet dated: 1.01.2005. Looking to the nature of charges against the
- 22 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 I Party and the punishment that is imposed by the II Party Management by compulsorily retiring him clearly indicates that the punishment order was a result of victimization."
29. It is seen from the above, the Tribunal held, it has only to see whether the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse or not and whether the evidence adduced before the Tribunal was considered in proper perspective.
30. Suffice to state, the aforesaid opinion of the Tribunal has not been agreed to by the learned Single Judge by stating in paragraph No.37 as under:
"37. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that it was a case of the enquiry officer and the petitioner recording the finding on absolutely no evidence. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal that the impugned order and the enquiry reports were perverse is contrary to the materials on record and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajai Kumar Srivatsava's case referred to supra."
31. The issue is whether the Tribunal was right in concluding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, because the documents on which reliance was
- 23 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 placed before it were not produced before the Enquiry Officer, as such the appellant was not given an opportunity to meet those documents during departmental enquiry by supplying the copies of the same to the appellant.
32. In this regard, it may be stated, such a finding is contrary to its finding that departmental enquiries were conducted in fair and proper manner, as it follows that the appellant was given proper opportunity to defend himself in the enquiries. In any case, the memos produced before the Tribunal could not have been ignored by the Tribunal only on the ground that they were not produced in the enquiries, more so the said memos have not been denied by the appellant. That apart, we note that in the following paragraphs of the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that it is not a case of no evidence, but there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges:
"Reg. Charge Sheet dated 03.07.2003:
(a) Reg. Charge No.1
19. In this charge the allegations against the respondent was that he issued Exs.M3 and M4 the railway concession forms to student Sohaib Akhtar without obtaining signatures of the principal which led
- 24 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 to withdrawal of railway concession facility to the petitioner's college.
20. To prove the said fact in the enquiry the petitioner relied on the evidence of M.W.1 its Office Superintendent and Exs.M1 to M7. Ex.M1 was the letter of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Bengaluru addressed to the petitioner stating that the institution has continued the issue of irregular concession forms despite inspection, therefore, student concession granted to the institution is withdrawn with immediate effect.
21. Ex.M2 is the copy of the letter dated 19.03.2003 addressed by the petitioner to the author of Ex.M6 stating that if the irregularity is specified, it will probe into such irregularity and take suitable action and request to continue the concession facility to the students to avoid hardship to them.
22. Ex.M5 was the letter said to have been addressed by Sohaib Akhtar to the Principal stating that while issuing Exs.M3 and M4 he was not asked to take the signature of the Principal. Exs.M8 and M9 are the correspondence of the railway department to show that concession facility to the students of the college was continued on receiving fine of Rs.1,000/- from the college with the warning that recurrence of such lapse will lead to withdrawal of concession permanently.
23. Except for Ex.M5 the respondent did not dispute any of the aforesaid documents. He tried to justify his action of issuing Exs.M3 and M4 without signature of the Principal on the ground that, he did so to help the student as the student was in a hurry to go to railway station. In Exs.M3 and M4 the railway department people have rounded the column meant for the signature of the head of the institution. Those documents bear only the seal of the Principal of the college and not the signatures of the Principal.
24. The respondent did not even dispute that the irregularity referred to by the railway department was issuance of unsigned railway concession form Exs.M3 and M4. Such being the facts the Tribunal says that there is no evidence to show that railway concession
- 25 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 was withdrawn only on account of issuance of unsigned forms. Therefore, such finding of the Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajai Kumar Srivatsava's case referred to supra.
25. Other ground for the Tribunal to reject findings of enquiry officer on the above said charge was that, to prove the lapses on the part of the respondent and Ex.M5 the petitioner should have examined Sohaib Akhtar. As already pointed out the respondent did not dispute issuance of unsigned railway concession forms (Exs.M3 and M4) to the said student and withdrawal of railway concession for such irregularity and restoration of the same on payment of fine. When the respondent tried to justify or explain his conduct of issuing unsigned forms, as per basic rule of evidence, burden was on him to prove the said fact. For that he should have examined that student and not the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal's reasoning that the petitioner should have examined the said student is contrary to the basic rule of evidence and ultimately such finding on the said charge is perverse.
(b) Reg. Charge No.2
26. In this charge the allegation was that on 22.03.2003 the respondent refused to carryout instructions of Accounts Superintendent Ganapathi Aithal to take the ledger accounts' printout and abused him in foul language. To prove that charge the petitioner examined Mr. Ganapathi Aithal as M.W.6 and relied on his report Ex.M15. Petitioner also relied on the evidence of M.W.7 the Second Division Assistant in the accounts section.
27. M.Ws.6 and 7 spoke in support of the charge. According to them, initially respondent defied to carryout the instructions and only on M.W.6 reporting the matter to the Principal and the Principal in turn instructing the respondent he carried out the said work. The respondent did not dispute the positions of M.Ws.6 and 7 in the said branch, the instructions of M.W.6, that he initially declined to carryout the said work and did that later on principal's instruction. But he tried to justify that saying that he had to emergently go to the
- 26 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 railway station to attend to the work relating to charge No.1, therefore he was not able to comply the instructions of M.W.6.
28. The burden was on the respondent to prove that he had some urgent work as alleged therefore he refused to comply the instructions of M.W.6. But he did not lead any evidence to substantiate his justification. It was not even his case that M.Ws.6 and 7 had any animosity against him to falsely implicate. Under such circumstances the respondent and the enquiry officer were justified in relying on the evidence of M.Ws.6 and
7. Despite that the Tribunal states that except the evidence of the said Ganapathi Aithal, there was no other evidence to prove the said charge. Such finding of the Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajai Kumar Srivastava's case referred to supra. Reg. Charge Sheet dated 12.01.2005:
29. The enquiry officer himself exonerated the respondent of charge No.1.
Reg. Charge No.2:
30. Under this charge it was alleged that on 28.10.2004 the respondent disobeying the orders of R.Shekar, the foreman in IEM department misbehaved with him. The other part of the charge is that the respondent unauthorizedly absented from duty from 12.30 p.m. of 08.11.2004 to 09.11.2004 and on reporting back on 10.11.2004 he tampered the attendance register marking his signature for
08.11.2004 and marking 'CL' for 09.11.2004.
31. The Tribunal rejected the findings of the enquiry officer and the respondent on the above charge on the ground that by way of victimization the respondent was deputed to IEM department, since M.W.5 was the custodian of the file it could not have been possible for the respondent to locate the file misplaced by him.
32. So far as unauthorized absence, it was held that the respondent left the work place due to the death
- 27 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 of his relative and on return on 10.11.2004 he submitted leave application and the petitioner without producing suppressed the leave application before the enquiry officer or the Court. To prove this charge the petitioner relied on the evidence of M.W.4 the in-charge Head of the Department of IEM department at the relevant time and M.W.5 Mr.R.Shekar the Foreman in the department.
33. M.Ws.4 and 5 speak about the respondent not carrying out the work of tracing the file in the department as instructed by M.W.4, remaining absent from duty from the afternoon of 08.11.2004 and on 09.11.2004 without leave of absence and tampering the attendance register. According to them the respondent applied leave on his return on 10.11.2004. M.W.5 further speaks about the respondent employing offensive language against him and behaving arrogantly with him.
34. The respondent did not dispute his deputation to IEM department and the position and presence of M.Ws.4 and 5 in the said department or the entrustment of the work to him or the report of M.W.4 as per Ex.M9 to the Principal about his absence in the department and the incident. He only suggested to M.W.4 that he was forced to submit the apology letter to their dictation. That itself goes to show that he submitted an apology letter for misbehaviour.
35. So far as the tracing of the file the respondent claimed that, M.W.5 himself was the custodian of the file therefore, he could not trace that. His further justification was that on account of death of his relative in Hubli, he was forced to leave the office in the afternoon. He claimed that though he sent the leave letter, the petitioner did not receive the same. Therefore, the burden was on him to establish his defence.
36. Except his interested testimony which was disputed by the petitioner, the respondent did not lead any other evidence. If the file was not traceable he could have at the least submitted a report accordingly to M.W.4. Under the circumstances the enquiry officer with detailed reasons held that said charge was proved.
- 28 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022
37. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that it was a case of the enquiry officer and the petitioner recording the finding on absolutely no evidence. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal that the impugned order and the enquiry reports were perverse is contrary to the materials on record and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajai Kumar Srivatsava's case referred to supra."
33. From the above paragraphs of the impugned Judgment, it is conclusively held by the learned Single Judge while exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India that the Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that impugned order and enquiry reports are perverse. Suffice to state, the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is within its power to consider as to whether the findings of the Tribunal are based on some evidence or no evidence at all. In this regard a reference be made to paragraph No.22 of the Judgment in the case of Ajai Kumar Srivastava (Supra) as under:-
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed
- 29 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan [State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1385] and later in State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian [State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 292] and further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under:
(B.C. Chaturvedi case [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , SCC pp. 759-60, para 13) "13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued." "
- 30 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 It is also settled law, if there is shade of evidence, the findings on the charges cannot be held as perverse. It is also settled law that the Tribunal can only interfere with the penalty if it is so disproportionate that it shocks its conscience.
34. The charges, the evidence and the conclusion of the Enquiry officer does not show that the penalty of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to shock the conscience of the Tribunal, more so because of large number of memos issued to the apellant which were exhibited as Ex.M14 to M110. The Tribunal discarded the said documents though exhibited, by stating they have not been properly proved in as much as the appellant, in his cross-examination, had neither admitted nor denied the documents. It also held that the documents should have been marked if the appellant had admitted the documents. The aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal is totally misplaced. We find that the said documents were produced by the respondent's witness Dr. K.N.Subramanya through his evidence by way of affidavit. Paragraphs No.7 and 8 of the affidavit read as under:
- 31 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 "7. I submit that the first party was totally non-
cooperative to his Colleagues and highly quarrelsome and also irritative in his approach.
8. The first party joined second party as Typist w.e.f. 3-6-1977 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 300/-. The other details with regard to his increments and promotions etc. till his date of discharge are at Exhibit M-14 to M-110. The first party was not working sincerely and diligently. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that he was working honestly as also in the best interest of the College. The said claim is totally false. The service record of first party was with lot of blemishes. The last drawn salary of first party was Rs 6,626 (July 2006) p.m."
35. Dr. K.N.Subramanya was cross-examined by the appellant's Advocate. Insofar as the cross-examination regarding Ex.M14 to M110 is concerned, the same can be seen at page No.176 of the paper-book. The witness states as under:
" xx xx xx xx I deny the suggestion that the 1st party workman did not commit any misconduct as referred in Ex.M14 to Ex.M110. I deny the suggestion that the 2nd party institution was extracting the extra work from the 1st party, on account of providing quarters to him. xx xx xx xx"
- 32 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022
36. From the cross-examination of Dr. K.N.Subramanya, it is seen that no question was put to the witness stating that the appellant was not in receipt of the said memos. In fact, the suggestion put by the Advocate for the appellant to the witness was that, the appellant has not committed any misconduct, which suggestion has been denied. If that be so, the said documents being on record of the Tribunal by way of Ex.M14 to M110, the respondent has rightly proved and relied upon the same. The counsel for the respondent is also justified in relying on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in KSRTC -Vs.- A. Ramanna (supra) wherein the Court has held as under:
"17. xx xx xx xx xx xx To say that taking into consideration past record without either appraising the workman of the same or without issuing show-cause-notice proposing the punishment to be imposed when the past record is also taken into consideration will amount to violation of principles of natural justice may not be very apt as Regulation 25 governing the same is statutory and it is not as though a surprise is spring on the workman. If the workman had suffered earlier punishment which again will be within his knowledge, the question of
- 33 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 workman being ignorant of the same also does not arise. Moreover, past record is not a material for holding the delinquent/workman as guilty of a charge in the present enquiry but is only a circumstance to be taken into account while determining the commensurate penalty. For these reasons we hold that the Labour Court is in error in refusing to take into consideration or not taking the past record as a circumstance justifying the punishment of dismissal which had been imposed by the disciplinary authority and for not sustaining the order of dismissal. Secondly and more importantly we are also of the view that the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority having taken into consideration the past record of the workman and having relied upon the same and this being part of the record before the Labour Court and the Labour Court having set aside the domestic enquiry as not being fair and proper and having allowed opportunity to lead evidence to the parties, the past record of the workman was an aspect which was well within the knowledge of the parties including the workman. The Labour Court itself having referred to this aspect of the matter, it is very obvious that the workman was aware of this aspect and Court have placed material and even could have made appropriate submissions on this aspect before the Labour Court. In this context we are of the very clear view that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the reliance and consideration of the past record of the workman on the aspect of quantum of punishment and the order of dismissal being based on the same cannot
- 34 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 be sustained as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. We are of the view that the Labour Court is not correct in placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in B. Nagaraj v. K.S.R.T.C. for holding that it was "in violation of principles of natural justice"."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. The aforesaid conclusion of the Division Bench is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, which we have stated above, is misplaced.
38. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are concerned, in Prem Nath Bali's case (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned in a proceedings initiated under CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the judgment impugned before the Supreme Court was the judgment of High Court of Delhi. In that sense, the proceedings did not arise on a reference made to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The law with regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court while exercising power under Section
- 35 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 11A of the Act is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in the following judgments:
(i) Life Insurance Corporation of India -Vs.- R. Dhandapani [AIR 2006 SC 615]:
"7. It is not necessary to go into detail regarding the power exercisable under Section 11-A of the Act. The power under the said Section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, is expected to interfere with the decision of the management under Section 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that punishment imposed by the management is wholly and shockingly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. To support its conclusion the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, has to give reasons in support of its decision. The power has to be exercised judiciously and mere use of the words "disproportionate" or "grossly disproportionate" by itself will not be sufficient.
8. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to degenerate into
- 36 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. (See Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan [(2006) 13 SCC 619 : (1994) 1 Scale 631 : (1994) 2 LLJ 888 (SC)] .)"
AND
(ii) Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board -Vs.- Jagadish Chandra Sharma [(2005) 3 SCC 401]:
"8. The question then is, whether the interference with the punishment by the Labour Court was justified? In other words, the question is whether the punishment imposed was so harsh or so disproportionate to the charge proved, that it warranted or justified interference by the Labour Court? Here, it had been clearly found that the employee during work, had hit his superior officer with a tension screw on his back and on his nose leaving him with a bleeding and broken nose. It has also been found that this incident was followed by the
- 37 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 unauthorised absence of the employee. It is in the context of these charges found established that the punishment of termination was imposed on the employee. The jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act to interfere with punishment when it is a discharge or dismissal can be exercised by the Labour Court only when it is satisfied that the discharge or dismissal is not justified. Similarly, the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed, is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. These aspects are well settled. In U.P. SRTC v. Subhash Chandra Sharma [(2000) 3 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 349] this Court, after referring to the scope of interference with punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, held that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal from service when the charge against the employee stood proved. It was also held that the jurisdiction vested with the Labour Court to interfere with punishment was not to be exercised capriciously and arbitrarily. It was necessary, in a case where the Labour Court finds the charge proved, for a conclusion to be arrived at that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the charge found proved, before it could interfere to reduce the punishment. In Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh [(2004) 8 SCC 200 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1067 :
(2004) 7 Scale 608] this Court after referring to the
- 38 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 decision in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] also pointed out the difference between the approaches to be made in a criminal proceeding and a disciplinary proceeding. This Court also pointed out that when charges proved were grave, vis-à-vis the establishment, interference with punishment of dismissal could not be justified. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate [(2005) 2 SCC 489 : (2005) 1 Scale 345] this Court again reiterated that the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment should be exercised only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and that each case had to be decided on its facts. This Court also indicated that the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, had to act within the four corners thereof. It could not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there existed a statutory provision in that behalf. The Tribunal or the Labour Court could not interfere with the quantum of punishment based on irrational or extraneous factors and certainly not on what it considers a compassionate ground. It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this question, since the matter has been dealt with in detail in a recent decision of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade [(2005) 3 SCC 134 : (2005) 2 Scale 302] . This Court summed up the position thus: (SCC p. 141, para 20) "20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial
- 39 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment."
It may also be noticed that in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. Adikanda Sahu [(1960) 1 LLJ 518 (SC)] and in New Shorrock Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao [(1996) 6 SCC 590 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1484] this Court held that use of abusive language against a superior, justified punishment of dismissal. This Court stated "punishment of dismissal for using abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate". If that be the position regarding verbal assault, we think that the position regarding dismissal for physical assault, must be found all the more justifiable. Recently, in Muriadih Colliery BCC Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union [(2005) 3 SCC 331 : JT (2005) 2 SC 444] this Court after referring to and quoting the relevant passages from Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh [(2004) 8 SCC 200 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 1067 : (2004) 7 Scale 608]
- 40 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 and Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen [(1973) 2 SCC 502 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 510] held: (SCC p. 336, para
17) "The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence have undermined the discipline in the organisation, hence, in the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under Section 11-A of the Act to interfere with the punishment of dismissal." "
39. In view of the settled position of law, moreso when the Tribunal has held the enquiry being fair and proper, the Tribunal could not have set aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the facts of this case, when evidence is available. We agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge by holding that the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer is not perverse and thereby setting aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal. Hence, the said judgment has no applicability to the facts of this case.
40. Insofar as judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) is concerned, the same has no applicability to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court was concerned with the issue whether non-issuance of charge sheet within three months of
- 41 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 suspension period would vitiate the suspension. The Supreme Court held in affirmative. It is not such a case here, hence the judgment is distinguishable. In the case of The Workmen -Vs.- M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. and Others (supra), the Supreme Court held even if the enquiry is held to be fair and proper and the findings of misconduct by the Enquiry Officer is accepted, the Tribunal has power to consider whether the punishment of dismissal or discharge was necessary for the type of the misconduct or any lesser punishment needs to be imposed. It is not such a case here.
41. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges in the manner done by the Enquiry Officer in these proceedings. Hence, it is not a case where the Tribunal could have said no misconduct has been committed by the appellant-workman. Further it is not the case of the appellant that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him is disproportionate to the misconduct.
42. Similarly in the case of State of Mysore -Vs.-
K.Manche Gowda (supra) on which reliance has been
- 42 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the issue in that case was if the past record is not one of the charge at the first stage, it cannot be looked into at the second stage. The said judgment shall not be applicable for the reason that the respondent has relied upon the memos only to show that even in the past, the appellant was issued memos for disobedience, which aspect has not been denied by the appellant during the proceedings before the Tribunal. The proposition that if the past record is not the charge at the first stage, it cannot be looked into at the second stage, shall have no applicability, as neither there was charge nor was the past record relied upon at the second stage.
43. Insofar as reliance placed in the case of Syed Yakoob (supra) to contend that the High Court cannot exercise powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to re-appreciate the evidence on record is concerned, the Supreme Court, in the said case, has clearly held that the High Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, can re-appreciate the evidence to conclude the findings are
- 43 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 based on no evidence. Insofar as the reliance placed on the judgment of K.V.S. Ram -Vs.- Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (supra) to contend that the evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient/inadequate to sustain the impugned findings is concerned, no doubt the adequacy or insufficiency of evidence is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but we find sufficient evidence has come on record to prove the charges. The evidence being admissible evidence, the interference by the Tribunal was uncalled for. The award of the Tribunal was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. In the facts, the Tribunal could not have exercised the powers under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the manner exercised by it in the award. Insofar as other judgments are concerned, we have seen the same.
In view of our findings above, the same shall have no applicability.
44. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein being WP No.8674/2014. It follows that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
- 44 -
WA 807 OF 2022 & WA 1222 OF 2022 WP No.2137/2017 filed by the appellant. The appeals being without any merit, the same are dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE PA