Gujarat High Court
Rajvallabh vs Echjay on 8 October, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave
Bench: A.L.Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2314/2010 3/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2314 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13243 of 2008
=========================================================
RAJVALLABH
BABURAM - Appellant(s)
Versus
ECHJAY
INDUSTIRES LIMITED - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 08/10/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed on 10.8.2010 in Special Civil Application No.13243 of 2008 dismissing the petition. The said petition arose out of a judgment and award rendered by the Labour Court, Rajkot on 8.4.2008 in Reference (LCR) No.52 of 1995.
2. The appellant was working with the respondent-Company as a Turner. He was charged for the misconduct of having attacked the security staff. Departmental proceedings were initiated and the Inquiry Officer found him guilty to the extent of being part of the crowd, which attacked the security officers. Before the Labour Court, the challenge was to the finding and the quantum of punishment. The Labour Court dismissed the Reference. The said award was, therefore, challenged before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge also dismissed the petition and, hence, this appeal.
3. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Labour Court has not assigned any reason for dismissing the Reference on merits. He submitted further that the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The appellant is a workman and the incident occurred in the premises of the factory and, therefore, his presence is necessary and unless any overt act is proved, he could have been mistaken as a part of the crowd and, therefore, the finding that he has committed misconduct is erroneous and even if this is not accepted, the punishment of dismissal is too harsh when no overt act is proved against him.
4. Having considered the submissions made before us, we have noticed that the incident occurred around midnight when the security staff of the respondent was attacked by a crowd. Before the Labour Court, the appellant has examined witness to depose that when the witness was passing by the place of incident, he noticed that the security staff was assaulting the workman. The appellant-workman does not deny his presence. He does not explain his presence at the wee hours in the factory. The version about the incident has not culminated into any criminal prosecution at the behest of either side and, therefore, there was no independent investigation of the incident. When the workman does not deny his presence, his explanation can reasonably be expected about his presence in the factory at odd hours. He was part of the crowd which attacked the security staff, though actual physical overt act may not have been properly proved. In this set of circumstances, if the employer has taken the decision to dismiss the appellant from service and the Courts below have found it proper not to interfere with the punishment on the ground of the same being grossly disproportionate to the misconduct, in our view, the appellate jurisdiction is not required to be exercised. There are two concurrent findings, both on fact as well as on the quantum of punishment and we would, therefore, not interfere with the order impugned.
6. Learned advocate for the appellant relied on the decision in the case of Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. vs. The Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227, wherein it has been held that the Labour Court has, under Section 11A, powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, if it is found to be disproportionate even where the Court does not interfere with the involvement of the workman in the misconduct.
7. There cannot be any dispute on the principle but where the Court finds that no interference is called for in the quantum of punishment, the Court cannot be compelled to exercise its jurisdiction. The judgment, therefore, cannot help the appellant.
8. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed.
(A.L. DAVE, J.) (M.D. SHAH, J.) zgs/-
Top