9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 701 - SC - Indian LawsIndustrial Dispute - Challenged the Dismissal of workman from services - Guilty of misconduct - Worker lying fast asleep on an iron plate at his working place - Disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in terms of Standing Order 24(1) under the Industrial Employment, 1946 - Whether the enquiry was proper; and (ii) is the finding recorded by the enquiry officer perverse - Respondent herein filed a complaint of unfair labour practice as specified under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act) against the Appellant herein before the Labour Court - HELD THAT - The Labour Court evidently had taken recourse to Clause (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act which ex facie was inapplicable. The said provision clearly postulates two situations, namely, (i) the misconduct should be of minor or technical character; and (ii) the punishment is a shockingly disproportionate without having any regard to the nature of the particular misconduct or the past record of service of the employee. The past record of service, therefore, is a relevant factor for considering as to whether the punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee is shockingly disproportionate or not. Thus, before the learned Single Judge an attempt on the part of the Respondent to take recourse to Clause (b) of Item (1) of Schedule IV failed. In absence of any plea of factual victimization and furthermore in absence of any foundational fact having been laid down for arriving at a conclusion of the legal victimization, in our opinion, the Division Bench committed a manifest error in invoking Clause (a) thereof. Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, must act within the four-corner thereof. The Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Although its jurisdiction is wide but the same must be applied in terms of the provisions of the statute and no other. If the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser punishment may be imposed, but such an order cannot be passed on an irrational or extraneous factor and certainly not on a compassionate ground. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the past conduct of the Respondent as also his conduct during the domestic enquiry proceeding, we cannot say that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the Respondent was wholly disproportionate to his act of misconduct or otherwise arbitrary. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the domestic enquiry against the Respondent was proper. 2. Whether the finding recorded by the enquiry officer was perverse. 3. Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the employee was harsh and disproportionate. 4. Whether the employer engaged in unfair labour practices as specified u/s 26 read with Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Summary: Issue 1: Properness of Domestic Enquiry The Labour Court initially held that the domestic enquiry against the Respondent was fair and proper. This was affirmed by the Revisional Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court, stating that the procedure followed during the enquiry was appropriate and the findings were not perverse. Issue 2: Perversity of Enquiry Officer's Finding The Labour Court found that the enquiry officer's findings were not perverse. The Respondent had admitted to his misconduct in a letter dated 26.8.1983, where he explained that he slept on an iron plate due to stomach ache without seeking permission. The Enquiry Officer noted the Respondent's repeated attempts to delay the enquiry by providing various excuses, leading to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted properly and the findings were justified. Issue 3: Harshness and Disproportionality of Punishment The Labour Court initially found the punishment of dismissal harsh and disproportionate, ordering reinstatement with 50% back-wages. However, the Revisional Court overturned this, emphasizing that the misconduct was grave and serious, and the past record of the Respondent did not justify leniency. The Division Bench of the High Court later reinstated the Labour Court's view but modified the order to a monetary compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- instead of reinstatement. The Supreme Court, however, found that the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate given the Respondent's past misconduct and upheld the dismissal. Issue 4: Unfair Labour Practices The Respondent alleged unfair labour practices u/s 26 read with Schedule IV of the Act, particularly clauses (a), (b), and (g). The Labour Court and Revisional Court did not find sufficient evidence of victimization or unfair labour practices. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in invoking Clause (a) without a foundational fact of victimization. The Supreme Court concluded that the punishment was not an instance of legal victimization or unfair labour practice, and the Division Bench's reliance on Colour-Chem Ltd. was misplaced. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the dismissal of the Respondent. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
