Important pointIn the given circumstances it is open to Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with punishment awarded in domestic inquiry for good and valid reasons but it should bear in mind principle of proportionality between gravity of offence and stringency of punishment.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 11A—Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has jurisdiction to interfere with punishment awarded in domestic inquiry for good and valid reasons—Principle of proportionality between gravity of offence and stringency of punishment is to be kept in mind—Respondent workmen with others formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons lathis went to office of General Manager and assaulted him and his Colleagues and General Manager suffered injuries on head—Fact that victim did not die was not a mitigating circumstance to reduce sentence of dismissal—Tribunal and High Court by condoning act of physical violence undermined the discipline in the organisation—Substitution of order of dismissal in such a case who wholly disproportionate to gravity of misconduct and was unsustainable.
Held : It is well established principle in law that in a given circumstance it is open to the Industrial Tribunal acting under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and valid reasons. If the Tribunal decides to interfere with such punishment it should bear in mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the stringency of the punishment. In the instant case it is the finding of the Tribunal which is not disturbed by the writ courts that the two workmen involved in this appeal along with the others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, went to the office of 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. (Para 13)
From the facts narrated herein above, the ratio laid down in two cases referred to herein above amply applies to the appeal in hand. The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence have undermined the discipline in the organisation, hence, in the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under Section 11(A) of the Act to interfere with the punishment of dismissal. Substituting the order of dismissal in such a case withholding of one increment in our opinion is wholly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and is unsupportable. (Para 17)

Judgment

Santosh Hegde, J.—The Management of Muriadih colliery of M/s. BCC Ltd. is in appeal against the award made by the Central Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad dated 11th of October, 1991 in an industrial dispute referred to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. By the said award the Tribunal upholding the misconduct of the two workmen set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the said workmen without payment of back wages and with permanent stoppage of one increment. The Tribunal also directed the workmen to give the continuity of their service.

3. The writ petition filed by the Management as against the said reduction in sentence before the learned Single Judge and an appeal before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court having been dismissed, the Management appellant is in appeal before us.

4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The two workmen were working as Pump Operator and Trammer respectively under the management of Muriadih colliery of M/s BCC Ltd.. On 11.5.1983 at about 11.15 a.m. a mob consisting of about 200 persons variously armed with deadly weapons like lathi, Bhalla, bow and arrow came to the office premises of General Manager, Barora area and amongst them the two respondent workmen attacked Shri H.N. Tripathi, the General Manager of the area with a lathi on his head as a result of which he sustained bleeding injury and he had to be admitted to a hospital. These workmen with the rest of the mob further assaulted other officers of Barora area including one Shri K.K. Khadia, Area Manager, Personnel, Shri K. Bhardwaj, Inspector CISF, Sher Singh, Havaldar and Bhim Singh. The motive for the said attack is stated to be an accident that occurred previously in regard to bursting of a water tank causing death of two persons.

5. A show cause notice was issued to these workmen to reply and the explanation submitted by the workers was not found satisfactory. In the domestic inquiry that was conducted the respondent workmen were found guilty of misconduct charged against them and on the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer the services of the concerned workmen were terminated w.e.f. 14.11.1984.

6. The said order of dismissal after inquiry gave rise to an industrial dispute as stated above. In the industrial dispute the workmen challenged the fairness and validity of the domestic inquiry. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the inquiry conducted was not fair, gave opportunity to lead evidence to the parties and after considering the material produced in the said inquiry came to the conclusion that the alleged incident of assault by the workers was proved and the two workmen concerned found guilty of the misconduct alleged against them.

7. Having taken into consideration the gravity of the offence of physical assault on the Managing Staff of the colliery with deadly weapons and causing injuries to them and having come to the conclusion that the Management has been able to prove most of the charge leveled against the workmen, the Tribunal proceeded to interfere with the punishment of dismissal observing thus:-

“I am to hold further that the concerned workmen were members of the mob and they also caused injury to Shri Tripathy and others. But definitely they had never intended to kill Shri Tripathy as held above. Since there was casually on account of bursting of water tank it was natural for the workmen in general to go in agitation against the management and at that time the mob is mostly guided by their own emotions and feelings. In the circumstances of the case I am of the view that the punishment of dismissal will be harsh punishment which definitely amount to hanging of an accused after criminal trial. For causing simple hurt even to the high officials like the General Manager the workmen should not be dismissed rather some alternative punishment like stoppage of increment which is also one of the major penalty should be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 319

Cases Referred (2)