Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs Pravinchandra Bhogilal Patel on 19 February, 2002
In the matter of Victor F. 'Parmar v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court (H.K. RATHOD, J.) observed that "the Labour Court should not mechanically use the charges. The Labour Court is required to give reasons as to why the punishment is grossly disproportionate. The discretionary powers cannot be equated with the power of veto." Therefore, I am of the view that it is true that under Section 11A of the Act, the Labour Court has power to reappreciate the evidence and the inquiry and it has me power to substitute the penalty. However, before exercising power under Section 11A, it is necessary for the Labour Court to examine as to whether the finding of the inquiry officer regarding the proof of charges or as to whether the charges are proved or not is correct. If it is found by the Labour Court that the charges are proved, then it has to examine the second aspect as to whether the misconduct which is proved is such which would call for the same punishment as imposed by the employer. While examining the second aspect of the case, the Labour Court has to keep in mind, whether any prudent employer having sound rationale would have imposed such penalty in a case of misconduct which is proved. If the Labour Court imposed such penalty upon the employee, in such type of misconducts, then only the power under Section 11A of the Labour Court will be attracted, and only under those circumstances, the labour can exercise power under Section 11A for the purpose of substituting the penalty. Therefore, as stated above, this Court has also held in earlier decision that the power under Section 11A of the Act is not to be mechanically exercised nor such power should be used as veto. Therefore, while exercising power under Section 11A of the Act, the Labour Court has to tilt the balance and has to take a prudent view as to whether the punishment is as such totally disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct or not and if the Labour Court comes to conclusion that any prudent employer in such type of misconducts would not have taken decision of imposing same penalty then in such circumstances the Labour Court will assume jurisdiction and substitute penalty under Section 11A of the Act. However, if the Labour Court comes to conclusion that no prudent employer in a case of misconduct would impose such heavy penalty then it is obligatory on the Labour Court to examine as to what suitable punishment would have been imposed by the prudent employer in a case of misconduct which is proved. The Labour Court will have power to substitute the penalty only to that extent and not beyond that. The Labour Court has also to keep in mind that while substituting penalty no undue benefits are conferred upon the person who has committed misconduct, that too at the cost of the other party. I am of the view that the aforesaid are the basic considerations which were required to be examined by the Labour Court while exercising power under Section 11A of the Act, and keeping in mind the aforesaid considerations the present case will have to be examined.