Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Madan Lal vs The Headmaster on 2 June, 2023

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2016 .

                                 Reserved on: 13.3.2023

                                    Decided on :           2.6.2023





    Madan Lal
                                                   ...Appellant





                              Versus

    The Headmaster, Lawrence School & anr.

                                         ...Respondents

___________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? yes ________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 2 Chauhan, Law Officer.

Per Virender Singh, Judge The appellant, Madan Lal has filed the present .

Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letter's Patent Act of High Court of Judicature of Lahore, as applicable to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment dated 23.6.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Writ Court') in CWPs No. 5449 of 2013 and 4600 of 2014.

2. The parties to the present lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Writ Court.

3. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, may be summed up, as under:

The appropriate government has made the following reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

"Whether the dismissal of services of Shri Madan Lal (Cook) S/o late Shri Ganga Ram by the Headmaster (Officiating) of the Lawrence School Sanwara, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. after conducting domestic enquiry w.e.f. 22.12.2003 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of back wages, seniority and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?"

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 3

4. The said reference has been made on the demand notice, submitted by petitioner Madan Lal. According to the petitioner, he was engaged as a Helper with the respondent­ .

School on 3.8.1991 and thereafter, he was promoted as Bearer on 1.1.1987 on probation of two years. After successfully completing the probation period, the petitioner was confirmed on 1.1.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Cook w.e.f. 1.8.1998. However, as per the stand taken by the petitioner, he was dismissed by the respondent on 22.12.2003.

5. He has assailed his dismissal on the ground that the same is violative of Section 33­1(a & b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to him, the Headmaster of the respondent­School was not competent to dismiss him from service. No appropriate inquiry was stated to have been conducted and the allegations of alleged forgery are stated to be false.

6. According to him, he was being victimized due to the fact that he was the General Secretary of the Workmen Association. According to him, he has not committed any misconduct by withdrawing the Education Allowances for study of his children.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 4

7. On the basis of above facts, he has prayed that his dismissal is bad in law and as such, he has sought relief of back wages, seniority and amount of compensation.

.

8. The said claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondent­school before the Labour­cum­Conciliation Officer, in which the factual position, regarding his engagement in the school, as Helper and later, his promotion to the post of Cook, has not been disputed.

9. However, according to the stand taken by the respondent­School, the petitioner was charge­sheeted for fraud, dishonesty, submission of forged documents, making of false declaration to gain monetary benefits by misleading the school authorities and claiming Education Allowance for his children illegally.

10. It is averred by the respondent that the petitioner was charge­sheeted on 8.11.2000. An inquiry was conducted, in which, the Inquiry Officer has concluded that the petitioner has committed fraud and, as such, he has been held guilty. Consequently, his services were terminated on 23.12. 2003.

11. When the reference was received by the Industrial Tribunal­cum­Labour Court, Shimla (hereinafter ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 5 referred to as 'the Labour Court'), the following issues were framed:

"1. Whether the dismissal of services of petitioner by the .

respondent after conducting domestic enquiry w.e.f. 22.12.2003 is illegal & unjustified as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what relief of back wages, seniority and amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to? OPP

3. Whether the respondent was not an employer of petitioner? If so, its effect? OPR

4. Whether the school is not an industry? OPR

5. Relief.

10. After considering the material placed before the learned Labour Court and the evidence led, the reference has been answered in favour of the petitioner, vide award dated 30.3.2013, by awarding the following relief:

"For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed to the effect that the dismissal order of petitioner from service w.e.f. 22.12.2003 by the respondent is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstatement in service with immediate effect with seniority and continuity but without back wages. However, the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is hereby imposed upon the petitioner and as such the reference is decided accordingly. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records."

12. Aggrieved from the said award, the parties to the lis have approached this Court.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 6

13. The petitioner Madan Lal filed CWP No. 4600 of 2014, claiming the relief that the award dated 30.3.2013, in so far as, it affirmed the findings of award, as recorded by the .

Inquiry Officer and so far as it negates the claim of back wages to the workman, may kindly be set aside. Apart from this, he claimed the backwages w.e.f. 22.12. 2003, being the date of his illegal termination.

14. In the said writ petition, apart from asserting the facts, which have been mentioned in the reference, he has asserted the fact that he was charge­sheeted on 8.11.2000 on the ground of fraud, dishonesty in connection with business of the School and for submission of forged documents and making false declaration to gain monetary benefits by misleading the school authorities. He has annexed copy of charge­sheet as Annexure P­1 with his writ petition.

15. According to the petitioner, he has contested the said show cause notice (Annexure P­1), which was not found to be satisfactory by the respondent­School. Consequently, the inquiry was initiated against him. In the inquiry, he was held guilty. He has assailed the inquiry report on the ground that necessary Rules governing the grant of Education Allowance were not produced by the respondent­School.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 7

However, after the inquiry, show cause notice was served upon him and he has replied the same. The respondent­ School remained silent for about 1 - ½ years. Thereafter, his .

services were terminated, vide order dated 23.12.2003.

16. Elaborating his stand, he has pleaded that the workmen of the respondent­School had formed a registered trade union, registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and the petitioner was elected as General Secretary of the same.

Being an elected office bearer of the union, he had been espousing the cause of the workmen and as such, he has been considered as sore in the eyes of the management for taking side of the workmen.

17. According to the petitioner, he was married to Smt. Promila from whom, they have three children. However, from the year 1997, his relations with his wife became strained and as such, his wife had left the matrimonial home and started living at Patiala alongwith children. She is also stated to have filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.

P.C., against the petitioner. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.

1000/­ per month, to his wife and the children. According to him, although his wife is residing at Patiala alongwith the ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 8 children, yet nothing has been disclosed to him about the whereabouts of the children. Therefore, under these circumstances, he was not aware about the school, in which, .

his children were studying. However, he had been informed that their children were studying in S.D. School at Patiala.

This fact, according to him, was duly intimated to the management of the school, upon which he had been assured by the respondent School that irrespective of the School, in which his children are studying, he shall keep on getting the minimum Education Allowance, qua the education of his children. In this regard, he has relied upon the communication, made in this regard, by the respondent­ school.

18. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was victimized without conducting a proper inquiry. He has pleaded that respondent­school has not even bothered to produce the Educational Allowance Rules before the Inquriy Officer, but the Inquiry Officer has recorded the findings that the petitioner has committed fraud by mis­representing the facts and as such, availed the benefit of Education Allowance for his children.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 9

19. According to him, the Labour Court has wrongly affirmed the findings of the Inquiry Officer with regard to furnishing of the false certificate and availing .

Education Allowance on the basis of misrepresentation. He has pleaded that the Labour Court has not given independent findings, but only relied upon the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

20. It is his further case that the Labour Court has failed to take note of the fact that the respondent­school had intentionally not produced the relevant Education Allowance Rules before the Inquiry Officer. According to the petitioner, he, being elected representative of the Union, is the protected workman under the definition of Industrial Disputes Act and no proceedings could have been initiated against him, under the mandatory provisions of the Act.

21. On all these submissions, he has sought the relief, as claimed in the writ petition.

22. When put on notice, the respondent­School has contested the writ petition by filing the reply, in which, preliminary objection has been taken with regard to the fact that he has no cause of action to file the present writ petition.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 10

23. On merits, the factum of filing reference before the Labour Court­cum­Conciliation Officer, as well as, making reference to the Labour Court by the appropriate government, .

has not been disputed.

24. Supporting the award, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was charge­sheeted on account of the fact that he has claimed Education Allowance for his children, by claiming that they are studying in Saraswati Niketan High School, Nalwa, P.O. Kasauli, District Solan and as such, claimed the Education Allowance for the academic year 1998­ 99, 1999­2000 and 2000­2001 (till 15.5.2000). As such, according to the charge­sheet, he has committed fraud, dishonesty in connection with business of School, by submitting the forged documents and also by giving false declaration to gain monetary benefits by misleading the School authorities.

25. The respondent­school has relied upon the relevant clause, regarding payment of Education Allowance to the employees of respondent School. According to the respondent­School, a proper inquiry was conducted after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 11 such, he has rightly been terminated. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.

26. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply, .

denying the preliminary objections, as well as contents of the reply, by virtue of which, his petition has been contested.

27. The respondent­ School has also filed the writ petition bearing No. 5449 of 2013, assailing the award passed by the learned Labour Court, merely on the ground that the learned Labour Court has not adhered to the mandate of Section 11­A of the Industrial Disputes Act, according to which, if the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that inquiry is valid and in conformity with the principles of natural justice, then the Labour Court is vested with the powers to go into quantum of punishment. The judgments cited by the respondents­School have not been considered properly. The learned Labour Court has also not considered the Rules of Lawrence School, governing the Education Allowance to the employees. In nut­shell, it is the case of the respondent­ School that once the misconduct is established and the inquiry is held to be fair and proper, then the Labour Court has no power to sit over the decision of appeal, over the punishment given by the employer. The powers vested with ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 12 the learned Labour Court, under Section 11­A of the Industrial Disputes Act, are to be exercised only when the punishment is found to be dis­proportionate to the guilt of .

the workman.

28. Elaborating this stand, it is the case of the respondent­School that it is proved on record that the petitioner has forged the certificate in question to claim benefit, to which, he is not entitled and in these circumstances, the learned Labour Court could not have reinstated him or given him lesser punishment.

29. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the writ petition by setting aside the award passed by the learned Labour Court, by virtue of which, relief of reinstatement has been awarded to the petitioner, alongwith seniority.

30. The said writ petition has been contested by the petitioner by taking the preliminary objections qua maintainability and also that the award under challenge is based on correct appreciation of facts and the law applicable to them and that as such the award calls for no interference by this Court.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 13

31. The contents of the writ petition have also been contested mainly on the ground that he has received minimum Education Allowance, permissible under the Rules .

and he has not claimed any amount in excess to the same.

The other grounds have also been denied by the petitioner.

32. Both these writ petitions were decided by the learned Writ Court, vide judgment dated 23.6.2015. The learned Writ Court has allowed the writ petition bearing No. 5449 of 2013, whereas writ petition bearing No. 4600 of 2014, preferred by the petitioner, came to be dismissed.

33. Aggrieved from the said judgments, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed, assailing the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court, mainly on the ground that the learned Writ Court, while substituting the penalty of stoppage to two increments, as imposed by the learned Labour Court, to the penalty of dismissal, by the employer, has failed to appreciate the fact that the discretion has been vested with the learned Labour Court in the matter of awarding relief, according to the circumstances of the case and the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not enjoy such powers, though, as a superior Court.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 14

34. The substitution of penalty, as has been done by the learned Writ Court is also stated to be contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, in Jitendra Singh versus .

Vaidya Nath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., reported in AIR 1984 SC 976.

35. Highlighting his unblemished career, it is the case of the petitioner that the learned Writ Court has not considered the above facts while upsetting the penalty imposed by the learned Labour Court.

36. On the basis of the grounds, as taken in the appeal, a prayer has been made to set aside the judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, while disturbing the findings regarding imposition of penalty.

37. It is no longer res­integra that in Letters Patent Appeal, there is no need to remand the matter back, as the Single Bench is not subordinate to the Division Bench, as such the matter can be decided by the Division Bench, itself.

38. The scope of interference in the award of the learned Labour Court, before this Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is limited to the extent until and unless it has been held that the findings, so recorded by the ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 15 learned Labour Court, falls within the definition of 'perverse findings'.

39. The learned Labour Court, while deciding the .

reference, has given misplaced sympathy to the workman/petitioner, while ordering to reinstate the workman/petitioner in service, with immediate effect, with seniority and continuity. Modifying the findings, so recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the punishment i.e. penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, has been imposed by the learned Labour Court.

40. As per the admitted case of the parties, the school authorities, vide letter dated 22/23.12.2003, Ext. P­30 has terminated the services of the petitioner, after holding inquiry. He was charge­sheeted for the allegations of fraud, dishonesty and forged documents and making false declaration, for claiming benefits by misleading the School authorities.

41. The perusal of the record shows that on 11.9.2000, it has been intimated to the petitioner that as per the record of the respondent­School, his two daughters were studying in the Saraswati Niketan School, Nalwa P.O.Kasauli, till 15 th May, 2000 and he has been requested to confirm whether ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 16 this fact is correct or not. Even otherwise, it is also mentioned that the school authorities were, in no way, interested to restrict the Education Allowance, as the .

petitioner is held to be free to claim the allowance, even if the children are studying in Patiala or at any other station.

42. Vide letter dated 16.10.2000, the workman has been intimated that the Education Allowance for his three children, has been credited alongwith his pay, for the month of October, 2000.

43. On 13.6.2000, the petitioner had submitted a request to the Head Master of Lawrence School, Sanawar regarding Education Allowance, by mentioning the names of his three children, namely, Aarti, aged 14 years, studying in 8th standard, Loveleen, aged 12 years, studying in 6th standard and Manish, aged 9 years, studying in 3 rd standard, in S.D. Kumar Sabha Shakuntla Public School, Patiala (Punjab). When the school authorities verified this fact, then vide Annexure R­7 and Annexure R­8, the Principal of S.D.K.S. Shakuntla Girls, Sr. Secondary School, Patiala, has intimated the school authorities that as per the school records, the above named children, namely Aarti, Loveleen ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 17 and Manish are neither their students nor they have studied in their school in past.

44. To be on safer side, the authorities of Lawrence .

School again requested to the Principal of S.D. Kumarsabha Shakuntala Public School, vide letter dated 28.11.2000, Ext.

R­11 to clarify the facts, upon which the similar information has been given to the school. The Principal of the S.D.K.S. Shakuntala Girls Sr. Secondary School, Patiala has clarified that they have no branch in the surrounding area. Meaning thereby, the children of the petitioner were not studying, at the relevant time, in the aforesaid school, as intimated by him to the respondent­School authorities, vide letter dated 20.6.2000 (Ext.R­6) and prior to that on 3.4.2000, he has submitted the certificate allegedly issued by the Principal, Saraswati Niketan School,Nalwa, Kasauli, vide Ext. R­5, depicting therein that Kumari Aarti was studying in 5 th standard and Manish Kumar was studying in 3 rd standard.

This certificate was also got verified by the school authorities by writing a letter to the Principal, Saraswati Niketan School, Nalwa, P.O. Kasauli on 9.5.2000 (Ext. R­14). In response to the said letter, the Principal, Saraswati Niketan School, Nalwa, P.O. Kasauli, vide letter dated 9.5.2000, Ext. R­15, ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 18 has categorically stated that the children/wards of Madan Lal, are not bonafide students of their school.

45. On 17.5.2000, again a request has been made to the .

Principal, Saraswati Niketan School, Nalwa, P.O. Kasauli to verify the certificate, allegedly issued by them, in the year 1998 and 1999, vide letter Ext. R­16. The aforesaid letter was duly replied by the authorities, vide letter dated 2.6.2000, Ext. R­17, mentioning therein that the children, whose names have been mentioned in the letter, have not studied in their school.

46. Upon this, on 16.8.2000, the petitioner was asked to file reply to the letter by clearing the factual position, upon which he has taken the stand that his daughters are now shifted from Saraswasti Niketan School, Kasauli to S.D. Kumar Sabha Shakuntala Public School, Patiala, regarding which a clarification has been sought by the authorities, vide letters Ext. R­8 and Ext. R­9, as referred to above.

47. The school authorities, have thereafter, adopted the procedure by issuing a show cause notice and appointing the Inquiry Officer, who had conducted the inquiry, after associating the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer, vide his report dated 30.5.2001, Ext. R­51, has held that both the charges ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 19 have been proved against him. The charges are reproduced as under:

"1. You have been claiming educational allowance for your .

children by proclaiming that they were studying in Saraswati Niketan School, Nalwa, P.O. Kasauli for the following years:

a) Academic year 1998­99 I. Kumari Aarti Class IV ii Kumari Loveleen Class III

b) Academic Year 1999­2000 I. Kumari Aarti Class V ii Manish Kumar Class III

c) Academic Year 2000­2001 Till 15th May 2000) I. Kumari Aarti Class V ii Manish Kumar Class III

2. You have submitted forged certificates to this effect thereby defauding the school with dishonest intention to gain a monetary advantage, which you were not entitled to.

In this regard your are charged with the following misconduct;

a) Fraud or dishonesty in connected with the business of school.

b)Submission of forged documents.

c) Making a false declaration to gain monetary benefit by misleading the School authorities."

48. On the basis of report of Inquiry Officer, the school authorities have passed the order, dismissing the petitioner with immediate effect. The said dismissal has been assailed before the learned Labour Court.

49. In para­25 of the award passed by the learned Labour Court, it has been held that the Rule 367 of the ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 20 Lawrence School Orders does not make it obligatory upon the employee of the School to furnish certificate from the concerned school, where his children are studying in order to .

avail the facility of Education Allowance. Rule 367 of Lawrence School Orders, is reproduced as under:

"1. As per existing School Rules Education Allowance is admissible for up to three children only who are studying in schools other than the Lawrence School, Sanawar in Class I to XII."

50. The petitioner has been charge­sheeted for the charges of fraud and dishonesty in connection with business of school and submitted forged documents and made false declaration to gain monetary benefits by misleading the school authorities.

51. While passing the award dated 30.3.2013, the learned Labour Court has not set aside the report of Inquiry Officer, but simply has held that the furnishing of the school certificate is not a pre­requisite condition for claiming the Education Allowance, whereas a reference has been made by the appropriate government for adjudication to the Labour Court, in which the legality and justification of the domestic inquiry had been requested to be adjudged.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 21

52. Perusal of the award shows that the workman has challenged the order of dismissal by way of CWP No. 126/2006. The said order is on record as Ext. R­62. The .

perusal of the same shows that the workman has sought protection. However, the liberty was given to the workman to raise this issue before the Labour Court.

53. It has allegedly been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent­School that the findings of learned Labour Court are contradictory, as, in para­15 of the award, it has been held that principles of natural justice, during the entire inquiry, have been adhered to by the Inquiry Officer and there is nothing on record, from which, any inference could be drawn that the petitioner was condemned unheard or his dismissal was result of victimization or unfair labour practice. Once, this conclusion has been drawn by the learned Labour Court, then, there is no occasion for the learned Labour Court to take the lenient view, by setting aside the order of dismissal, by invoking provisions of Section 11­A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The provisions of Section 11­A of the Industrial Disputes Act are reproduced as under:

"Power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen:­ Where an industrial dispute relating to the ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 22 discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is .

satisfied, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement or the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require:

Provided that in any proceeding under this Section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."

54. There is nothing in the award, passed by the learned Labour Court to show as to how the dismissal order passed by the school authorities, after adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, was not justified.

The petitioner has obtained the monetary benefit by submitting the documents, which were not found to be genuine, rather the Inquiry Officer has found him guilty of furnishing false certificate, regarding studies of his children.

55. Rule­367 of the Lawrence School Orders, which has been reproduced above, clearly stipulates that the entitlement of the employee to get the Education Allowance is depending upon the fact that his or her children are studying in schools other than Lawrence school, Sanawar.

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 23

56. A feeble attempt has been made by the learned Labour Court to interpret Rule 367 of the Lawrence School Orders, in the manner to demonstrate that the petitioner is .

automatically entitled for Education Allowance, merely on the fact that he is having three children. The words, "who are studying in schools", mandated the petitioner to furnish the requisite proof regarding admission of his children in the same school.

57. As is evident from the Inquiry report, the petitioner had submitted the document, which was found to be false certificate, then the learned Labour Court was not supposed to tinker with the penalty, imposed upon the petitioner.

58. The learned Labour Court, on one hand, has held that the petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr. P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, vide order, Ext. P­25, and on the other hand, the order of dismissal has been modified merely on the ground that the punishment of dismissal is harsh and not in consonance with the mis­conduct, committed by him.

Merely, the entitlement of the petitioner to the Education Allowance, does not permit him to submit forged documents, which comes within the definition of "gross mis­conduct".

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 24

59. The learned Labour Court, while exercising its powers, as provided under Section 11­A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is bound to consider the material, available on .

record as well as evidence, adduced during the proceedings.

While exercising the powers under Section 11­A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court should not give benefit to the petitioner, on its misplaced sympathy.

60. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India versus R. Dhandapani, reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 613, has elaborately discussed the power of the Labour Court, under Section 11­A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The relevant paragraphs 8 to 10 of the judgment are reproduced as under:

"8. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well­meant 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 25 irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. [See: Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan and Anr.

.

9. Though under Section 11­A, the Tribunal has the power to reduce the quantum of punishment it has to be done within the parameters of law. Possession of power is itself not sufficient; it has to be exercised in accordance with law.

10. The High Court found that the Industrial Tribunal had not indicated any reason to justify variations of the penalty imposed. Though learned counsel for the respondent tried to justify the Award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have considered the case in its proper perspective, we do not find any substance in the plea. Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are not forums whose task is to dole out private benevolence to workmen found by Labour Court/Tribunal to be guilty of misconduct. The Tribunal and the High Court, in this case, have found a pattern of defiance and proved misconduct on not one but on several occasions. The compassion which was shown by the Tribunal and unfortunately endorsed by learned single Judge was fully misplaced."

61. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in light of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the learned Labour Court has not rightly exercised its jurisdiction, as well as, powers, under Section 11­A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the order has simply been passed on misplaced or mistaken sympathy, as there is nothing on record to justify the interference by the learned Labour Court in the order of ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS 26 dismissal, passed by the authorities. The said conclusion of the learned Labour Court squarely falls within the mischief of term, 'perverse'. In other words, it can be stated that the .

learned Writ Court has rightly interfered with the findings, so recorded by the learned Labour Court, in favour of the school authorities.

62. In view of above, this Court is in full agreement with the findings, so recorded by the learned Writ Court, while disposing of CWPs No. 5449 of 2013 and 4600 of 2014.

Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Writ Court is upheld and the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) Judge June 2, 2023 Kalpana ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 20:31:20 :::CIS