Karnataka High Court
Ravindra Shetty vs The Management Of Mysore Petro ... on 4 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: [1999(82)FLR806], 1999(6)KARLJ367
Author: V. Gopala Gowda
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda
ORDER
1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23719 of 1998 was working as Senior Health Inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') in M/s. Mysore Petro Chemicals Limited in Raichur (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') which the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15503 of 1998. The workman was removed from service. He raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Gulbarga. The validity of domestic enquiry conducted was tried as preliminary issue and it was held in favour of the management holding that the enquiry conducted was fair and legal. Thereafter, upon adjudication of the dispute, the Labour Court passed the impugned award on 7-2-1998 directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages. While the workman has filed W.P. No. 23719 of 1998 challenging that portion of the award denying 50% back wages, the management has filed W.P. No. 15503 of 1998 seeking to quash the entire award. Since both the writ petitions pertain to the same award, they were heard together.
2. Mr. V.S. Nayak, learned Counsel for the workman argued contending that denial of 50% back wages by the Labour Court was not justified. Per contra, Mr. B.C. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the management argued contending that the Labour Court has not discharged its statutory duty in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Private Limited v Management and Others . His submission is that after insertion of Section 11-A to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), if the domestic enquiry conducted is held as legal and valid, the Labour Court has to give reasons for not accepting the views taken by the Disciplinary Authority. The Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hindusthan Tobacco Company v First Labour Court, West Bengal , wherein it is held that in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, judicial review is not directed against the correctness of the decision but against the correctness of the decision making process. The Counsel submits that the decision making process adopted by the Labour Court was not correct and the impugned award is liable to be quashed.
3. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, perused the impugned award. It is well established principle that after insertion of Section 11-A to the Act, even though the order of dismissal or termination was preceded by a legal and valid enquiry, the Labour Court has got power to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. From a perusal of the impugned award it is clear that the Labour Court has elaborately considered the material available on record and on appreciation of the same, it has recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the workman was not proved. That is a finding of fact recorded by the fact finding authority, namely the Labour Court. The powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 upon this Court are very limited and this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the competent Labour Court, as held in Hindusthan Tobacco Company's case referred to above. The reasons assigned by the Labour Court are based on the material evidence available on record. Those findings are not perverse. This Court shall not venture upon to re-appreciate the evidence to find out the correctness or otherwise of the reasons assigned by the Labour Court.
4. The submission of learned Counsel for the workman that denial of 50% back wages without assigning reason is bad in law, cannot be accepted. No doubt, the normal rule is if the order of dismissal or termination is set aside, back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits shall follow. The said rule cannot be applied to all cases. Facts and circumstances of cases warrant exercise of discretionary power. In the instant case the Labour Court has exercised its discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Act and denied 50% back wages to the workman. No doubt, the Labour Court has not assigned any reasons for denying 50% back wages. However, after perusing the charge-sheet produced as Annexure-B in the writ petition filed by the management, I am satisfied that denial of 50% back wages was correct. The charges levelled against the workman are grave in nature. It is no doubt true that the finding of the Labour Court is that the charges are not proved. A perusal of the reasonings of the Labour Court reveals that the failure to prove the charges was not on merits but due to some technical reasons. In paragraph 24 the Labour Court has recorded that the oral and documentary evidence available was not sufficient to hold the workman guilty of the charges. That means, an opportunity is required to be given to the management to place sufficient material in proof of the charge and for that purpose a de novo enquiry has to be ordered. That has not been done by the Labour Court. Instead of giving room for such exercise, the Labour Court has thought fit to deny 50% back wages. No fault can be found for having exercised the discretionary power. Even otherwise also, the conduct, behaviour and the attitude of the workman require some kind of denial of the monetary benefits so that he shall not involve in such activities in his own interest and in the larger interest of the company and to avoid the embarrassing situations to be faced by the management.
5. The impugned award is perfectly correct and the same do not call for interference. Consequently, both the writ petitions filed by the workman and the management are liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.