9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry proceeding was initiated against him on or about 6.9.1987. In the said departmental proceedings he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was removed from service by the appointing authority by an order dated 18.12.1991. 3. He raised an industrial dispute. The State of U.P. referred the dispute to Labour Court-II, Kanpur for its decision on the following question: Whether termination of services by the employers of their workman Nanhe Lal Kushwaha, S/o Heera Lal Kushwaha, Conductor vide order dated 18.12.1991 is legal and/or valid? If not, then to what relief/compensation the concerned workman is entitled to get? And with what other details? 4. By reason of its award dated 29.2.2000 the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent with 75% back-wages, stating: I have duly perused all the documents available on record and considered the above discussions. The misconducts of carrying without ticket passengers on 06.03.1986 and 04.03.1987 which had been levelled against the petitioner workman, the same have been found proved on the basis of evidence of the witnesses produced by the Respondents. But misconducts regarding the incidents of 10.04.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with iron hands and it was held: Since charges have been found proved against the workman concerned with the dispute hence the Respondents are directed that they will pay 75% of wages and other wages and other benefits to the concerned workman during the period of unemployment. 7. This Court times without number has deprecated the practice adopted by the High Courts in disposing of the writ petitions without assigning any reason. It is well settled that industrial tribunal or a labour court may interfere with a quantum of punishment awarded by the employer in exercise of its power under Section 11A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act but, ordinarily, the discretion exercised by the employer should not be interfered with. The learned Labour Court did not assign any sufficient and cogent reason as to on what premise the punishment imposed upon the respondent by the employer by an order dated 18.12.1991, can be said to be excessive; keeping in view the seriousness of the charges. The question as to whether an order of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charge on the basis whereof the workman has been found to be guilty, must be spelt out in a clear and cogent mann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or ac ts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. 9. The High Court, in our opinion, committed the same error which had been pointed out in the aforesaid decision. Apart therefrom, this Court in L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. and Anr., 2006 (2) SCC 269, opined: So far as the contention as regards quantum of punishment is concerned, suffice it to say that verbal abuse has been held to be sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal. This Court further noticed : 23. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.N. Narawade etc. [JT 2005 (2) SC 583 : (2005) 3 SCC 134] is a case wherein the misconduct against the delinquent was 'verbal abuse'. This Court held : It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bly, armed with deadly weapons, went to the office of the General Manager and assaulted him and his colleagues causing them injuries. The injuries suffered by the General Manager were caused by lathi on the head. The fact that the victim did not die is not a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of dismissal. 25. These questions recently came up for consideration in Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust Anr. v. State of Karnataka Ors. [2005 (10) SCALE 307], upon considering a large number of cases, this Court held: 'Indiscipline in an educational institution should not be tolerated. Only because the Principal of the Institution had not been proceeded against, the same by itself cannot be a ground for not exercising the discretionary jurisdiction by us. It may or may not be that the Management was selectively vindictive but no Management can ignore a serious lapse on the part of a teacher whose conduct should be an example to the pupils. This Court has come a long way from its earlier view points. The recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen was sought to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
