Allahabad High Court
Scooter India Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 31 October, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1997)IIILLJ1037ALL
JUDGMENT K. L. Sharma, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated September 23, 1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow for directing the petitioner-Company to reinstate the opposite party No. 2 in service and pay him half of the back wages subject to adjustment of the payment received for leave travelling and three increments were ordered to be withheld.
2. The opposite party No. 2 was a workman of the petitioner. He was granted leave travel concession for himself and for his family members during the year 1982-83 and he represented that his family travelled on May 1, 1982 by Railway from Lucknow to Bombay V.T. but on inquiry, it was found that no ticket was issued from Lucknow Station to any person for journey from Lucknow to Bombay V. T. Therefore, the petitioner was chargesheeted and on the domestic inquiry held against him, he was found guilty and consequently, his services were dismissed on February 28, 1986. The opposite party No. 2 denied the charge and pleaded that several workmen of the Company were also chargesheeted but they were not punished at all and as such, the dismissal order passed against him suffers from the vice of discrimination. Then, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal (6), Lucknow which after hearing and on perusal of the record, recorded the findings that the domestic inquiry does not suffer from any infirmity and the findings cannot be said to be perverse. Thereafter, this matter was transferred to the Labour Court, Lucknow which was heard by giving opportunity to both the parties. The finding of the Industrial Tribunal as well as that of the Inquiry Officer was challenged by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the ground that no opportunity was given to him to defend himself. However, the learned Labour Court rejected this contention but finding that there has been discrimination in the matter of punishment and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zilajeet Pal, it ordered reinstatement and reduced his punishment to withholding three increments and half of the back wages.
3.The opposite party No. 2 has contested this writ petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.C. Misra and the opposite party No. 2 in person and perused the record.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the Labour Court was not legally competent to set aside the order of dismissal and to reduce the punishment when the guilt of the workman has been proved and upheld by the Industrial Tribunal. He has further contended that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zilajeet Pal, cannot be treated to be a precedent, because the Hon'ble Supreme Court had so declared in its order dated March 11, 1991.
5. There is no doubt that the Industrial Tribunal found no defect in the domestic inquiry and in the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The charge of making a false claim of L.T.C. for the family was also considered proved by the learned Industrial Tribunal. The Labour Court did not record a different opinion on the findings.
6. The opposite party No. 2 also disputed the charge by assailing that the tickets were rather issued from the Railway Station or were arranged from any neighbouring Station for journey from Lucknow to Bombay V.T. Instead he has taken defence that many workmen of the Company had also not performed journey on L.T.C. and had made false claims but they were not punished and his case has been singled out and discriminated in the matter of punishment. Therefore, in my judicial review, the point in controversy is now confined whether the learned Labour Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal and reducing the punishment to withholding three increments and half of the back wages. True, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Scooters India Limited v. Labour Court (1989-I-LLJ-1) and Zilajeet Pal and had set aside the punishment on the ground of being exorbitant and directed reinstatement with payment of fifty per cent of his back wages for the period he was out of employment. While giving this direction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this order may not he used as a precedent in other matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with Mr.P.P. Rao, learned senior Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act would have powers to examine the nature of dereliction and also the quantum of punishment and in suitable cases, appropriately modify the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in saying that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so. In view of this declaration of principle of law explaining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (which also includes the Labour Court) under the Industrial Disputes Act, it lay within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to consider the nature of dereliction and also the quantum of punishment. Therefore, the first contention raised by Sri S. C. Misra, is not acceptable. The Industrial Tribunal is well as the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act have got competence to examine the nature of dereliction and also the punishment imposed and to pass appropriate orders modifying or settig aside the same.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically mentioned that the direction for payment of back wages must be confined to the facts of this case and may not be used as a precedent in other matters. This observation did not deprive the Labour Court of its power to pass a similar direction while considering the reduction of punishment on examination of facts of each case. Moreover, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not intend that this direction should be followed blindly in other matters without examination of the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Labour Court has not committed in my opinion, any fault if it had adopted the same principle of payment of back wages as it was done after examining the facts and circumstances of the case of another workman Zilajeet Pal of the same Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has left the decision in the discretion of the Court or the Tribunal to modify the order of punishment appropriately. If the learned Labour Court has withheld fifty percent back wages of the opposite party No. 2 (Yashpal Singh), it does not mean by itself that it has followed the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a precedent.
8. This fact is not disputed that the workmen of the Company are availing the L.T.C. facilities themselves and the members of their families. It appears that according to rule in practice, several workmen claimed L.T.C. benefit without actually availing of the same by performing the journeys. This practice, though improper and contrary to the regulations of the Company, has generated an atmosphere amongst the workmen of the Company that those who do not actually perform the journey can also avail the L.T.C. benefit by receiving the payments. Some workmen were also chargesheeted but they were not punished at all. The learned Labour Court has found on facts that there has been discrimination in the matter of punishment for the same nature of dereliction on the part of the workmen of the Company. In such a situation, the judicial conscience gets shocked when one workman is singled out and dimissed from service whereas, other workmen guilty of the same charge, are not at all punished. The principle of equality is applicable to all similarly placed. If there is an inequality in treatment, the Courts will have to uphold and apply Article 14 of the Constitution of India to mitigate the hardship on the ground of unequal treatment. If the Company enforces the rule or regulation that L.T.C. benefit will be paid to those workmen only, who actually perform the journeys in respect of their claim, and it is strictly followed after a proper notice to all workmen, then there can be a case of imposing hard punishment but so far as pointed out by the Labour Court, there is no such enforcement and equal treatment in respect of the same kind of dereliction by the workmen. Therefore, for this reason also the modification of the order and reduction in the punishment of dismissal from service made by the learned Labour Court, appears to be justified, factual and legal also.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submilted that M/s. Scooters India Limited is suffering great loss and wants to dispense with services and retrench the unnecessary number of employees so as to make it a viable concern and if by orders of the Court the dismissed employees are reinstated without there being a post and financial provision it would lead the Company to its closure. If the submission is factually correct, even then law does not permit the Company to commit illegalities in the matter of dealing with the workmen and to dismiss them in an arbitrary manner. The Industrial Disputes Act has already made adequate provisions for the industry concerned to deal with the situation of loss, strikes, lockages, closure etc. If the surplus employees are to be retrenched, the provisions of the Act and the rules can be resorted to in a systematic manner without violating the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The discriminatory treatment to workmen with ulterior intention to get them out of employment cannot be permitted. Judicial orders of a Court of law or a Tribunal established under any law of the Parliament or the State Legislature will have to be carried out and complied with by every industry concerned: whether it is a Private Company or a Public Company or a Government Company.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned award of the learned Labour Court. The writ petition filed by the Company is liable to be dismissed.
11. Therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs as assessed at Rs. 2,500/- payable to the opposite party No. 2. The award of the learned Labour Court dated September 23, 1991 in favour of the opposite party No. 2 is hereby confirmed and the petitioner is directed to carry out the directions fully within a period of one month from the date of delivery of this judgment. In case the payment of half of the back wages for the period is not made within one month, to the opposite party No. 2, an interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall also be payable to the opposite party No. 2. after expiry of one month till the date of actual payment. The amount of L.T.C. claimed shall be adjusted and deducted from the amount of fifty per cent back wages payable to the opposite party No 2.
Shobha Dikshit, J.
12. Judgment delivered today under Chapter VII Rule 1 (3) of Rules of Court, 1952.