Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs B. N. Ananti Padmabiah Etc on 22 April, 1971
In Union of India & Anr. vs. B.C. Chaturvedi
[1995] 6 SCC 750, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court has held
that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
confers power on Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to apply
its mind on the question of proportion of punishment or
penalty. It was held that this power is also available to
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, though it
was qualified with a limitation that while seized with this
question as a writ court, interference is permissible only
when the punishment/penalty is shockingly disproportionate.
Colour-Chem Limited vs A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors on 5 February, 1998
Again, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Colour-Chem Ltd.
vs. A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors. [1998] 3 SCC 192, relying upon
an earlier decision in Hind Construction & Engineering Co.
Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1965 SC 917 = [1965] 2 SCR 85 = [1965]
1 LLJ 462, laid down as under : "Consequently it must be
held that when looking to the nature of charge of even major
misconduct which is found proved if the punishment of
dismissal or discharge as imposed is found to be grossly
disproportionate in the light of the nature of the
misconduct or the past record of the employee concerned
involved in the misconduct or is such which no reasonable
employer would ever impose in like circumstances, inflicting
of such punishment itself could be treated as legal
victimisation." Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act
provides as under:- "11A. Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals
and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of
discharge or dismissal of workmen -- Where an industrial
dispute relating to the 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 that the
order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may,
by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal
and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and
conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other
relief to the workman including the award of any lesser
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 material on record and shall not take any fresh evidence
in relation to the matter." This Section, as interpreted by
this Court, no doubt, vests the Labour Court with discretion
to substitute the order of discharge or dismissal of a
workman into an order of reinstatement of the workman on
such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give
such other relief to the workman including the award of any
lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the
circumstances of the case may require. In the present case,
the following industrial dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for adjudication: "Whether the termination of the
service of their workman Sh. Subhash Chandra Sharma S/o
Shri Nathimal, driver by the employer by order dt.
31.08.1991 is proper and legal? If not, what is the relief
(with details) to which the workman is entitled to?" The
Labour Court, while upholding the third charge against the
respondent nevertheless interfered with the order of the
appellant removing the respondent from the service. The
charge against the respondent was that he, in drunken state,
along with a conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the
cash room of the appellant and demanded money from the
Assistant Cashier. When the Assistant Cashier refused, the
respondent abused him and threatened to assault him. It was
certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the
respondent. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was not
justified in interfering with the order of removal of
respondent from the service when the charge against him
stood proved. Rather we find that the discretion exercised
by the Labour Court in the circumstances of the present case
was capricious and arbitrary and certainly not justified.
It could not be said that the punishment awarded to the
respondent was in any way "shockingly disproportionate" to
the nature of the charge found proved against him. In our
opinion, the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct
the erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed to
stand, would certainly result in miscarriage of justice.
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and the award dated December 6,
1996 of the Labour Court. There shall, however, be no order
as to costs.
Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 9 November, 1964
Again, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Colour-Chem Ltd.
vs. A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors. [1998] 3 SCC 192, relying upon
an earlier decision in Hind Construction & Engineering Co.
Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1965 SC 917 = [1965] 2 SCR 85 = [1965]
1 LLJ 462, laid down as under : "Consequently it must be
held that when looking to the nature of charge of even major
misconduct which is found proved if the punishment of
dismissal or discharge as imposed is found to be grossly
disproportionate in the light of the nature of the
misconduct or the past record of the employee concerned
involved in the misconduct or is such which no reasonable
employer would ever impose in like circumstances, inflicting
of such punishment itself could be treated as legal
victimisation." Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act
provides as under:- "11A. Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals
and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of
discharge or dismissal of workmen -- Where an industrial
dispute relating to the 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 that the
order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may,
by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal
and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and
conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other
relief to the workman including the award of any lesser
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 material on record and shall not take any fresh evidence
in relation to the matter." This Section, as interpreted by
this Court, no doubt, vests the Labour Court with discretion
to substitute the order of discharge or dismissal of a
workman into an order of reinstatement of the workman on
such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give
such other relief to the workman including the award of any
lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the
circumstances of the case may require. In the present case,
the following industrial dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for adjudication: "Whether the termination of the
service of their workman Sh. Subhash Chandra Sharma S/o
Shri Nathimal, driver by the employer by order dt.
31.08.1991 is proper and legal? If not, what is the relief
(with details) to which the workman is entitled to?" The
Labour Court, while upholding the third charge against the
respondent nevertheless interfered with the order of the
appellant removing the respondent from the service. The
charge against the respondent was that he, in drunken state,
along with a conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the
cash room of the appellant and demanded money from the
Assistant Cashier. When the Assistant Cashier refused, the
respondent abused him and threatened to assault him. It was
certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the
respondent. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was not
justified in interfering with the order of removal of
respondent from the service when the charge against him
stood proved. Rather we find that the discretion exercised
by the Labour Court in the circumstances of the present case
was capricious and arbitrary and certainly not justified.
It could not be said that the punishment awarded to the
respondent was in any way "shockingly disproportionate" to
the nature of the charge found proved against him. In our
opinion, the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct
the erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed to
stand, would certainly result in miscarriage of justice.
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and the award dated December 6,
1996 of the Labour Court. There shall, however, be no order
as to costs.
1