2009 (8) TMI 882 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether termination of services by the employers of their workman Conductor vide order dated 18.12.1991 is legal and/or valid? Whether an order of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charge on the basis whereof the workman has been found to be guilty? Held that - Appeal allowed. The High Court as indicated despite noticing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, did not choose to deal therewith. It passed the operative portion of the order without discussing any materials on record. Even the principles of law on the basis whereof the purported discretionary jurisdiction was sought to be exercised, has not been stated.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the termination of the respondent's services.
2. Appropriateness of the punishment imposed by the employer.
3. Jurisdiction and discretion of the Labour Court and High Court in modifying the punishment.
4. Consideration of the respondent's reinstatement and back-wages.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Termination:
The respondent, employed as a conductor by the appellant under the Road Transport Corporation Act, was charged with carrying passengers without tickets on multiple occasions. A disciplinary proceeding initiated against him found him guilty, leading to his removal from service on 18.12.1991. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the State of U.P. referred the matter to Labour Court-II, Kanpur. The Labour Court, in its award dated 29.2.2000, directed reinstatement with 75% back-wages, finding the respondent guilty of misconduct on two specific dates but not on others.

2. Appropriateness of the Punishment Imposed by the Employer:
The Labour Court concluded that the punishment of removal from service was excessive considering the seriousness of the charges proved. It ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 75% back-wages. The High Court, however, modified the award to exclude back-wages but allowed continuity of service for retiral benefits, noting the respondent's reinstatement under an interim order and subsequent retirement.

3. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the Labour Court and High Court in Modifying the Punishment:
The Supreme Court criticized the Labour Court and High Court for not providing sufficient and cogent reasons for modifying the punishment. It emphasized that the discretion to interfere with the quantum of punishment under Section 11A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act should be exercised judiciously. The Court cited precedents, highlighting that reasons are essential to justify the modification of punishment, especially when the employee holds a position of trust requiring high integrity.

4. Consideration of the Respondent's Reinstatement and Back-Wages:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Labour Court and High Court failed to address the seriousness of the misconduct adequately. It noted that the respondent, holding a fiduciary position, was found guilty of similar misconducts on multiple occasions. The Court underscored that leniency in such cases is inappropriate, and misconduct involving public money must be dealt with strictly. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, disallowing the respondent's reinstatement and back-wages, but without ordering costs.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to principles of proportionality and integrity in cases of misconduct by employees in fiduciary roles. The judgment underscores the necessity for lower courts to provide detailed reasoning when modifying employer-imposed punishments.