The Labour Court had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management in the absence of unfair labor practices or victimization. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in cases of dismissal or discharge of a workman.

Judgment

ARUIT PASAYAT, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court setting aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgment it was held that the punishment of reversion passed by the disciplinary authority was proper. The workman concerned was in the employment of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), Respondent 1 in this appeal.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The appellant Union raised an industrial dispute on behalf of one of its members questioning correctness of the order passed by Respondent 1 reverting the workman concerned Shri S. Sivasankara Pillai, Manager, Grade II. He was designated as Manager, Grade II in Respondent ls establishment. He was charge - sheeted for misconduct of: (1) causing wilful loss to the Corporation; (2) habitual breach of rules; (3) making false allegations against superior officers; (4) gross negligence of duty. The essence of allegations raised against him was that by order dated 1 - 2 - 1975 he was put in charge of filling and packing sections of that factory. On 8 - 9 - 1975 he did not arrange work in the filling section and that occasioned considerable loss to the factory. On 11 - 9 - 1975 the filling work suffered for about 1 ~ hours due to his indifferent attitude. On 16 - 9 - 1975 no work was done in the filling and packing sections, though the workmen were ready to work. Because of this non - cooperation and indifference, huge loss was caused to the Corporation. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the employee, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Assistant Personnel Manager of the respondent establishment conducted the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges were proved in the enquiry. After considering the findings of the enquiry officer and seriousness of the charges levelled against the employee, the management imposed a punishment by reverting the employee as factory clerk, but the salary he was drawing was protected. According to the respondent management, he was not dismissed from service by taking a lenient view, even though the misconducts proved in the enquiry were serious.

3. The appellant Union filed statement before the Labour Court questioning the enquiry as well as the punishment imposed. The respondent management in its pleadings raised three preliminary points:

(1) Whether the order of reference is proper and valid? (2) Whether the enquiry held is proper and valid?

(3) Whether the findings of the enquiry officer are based on legal evidence or whether the same are perverse?

4. The Labour Court at first held that the employee concerned was not a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act") and hence there is no valid industrial dispute. That order was set aside by the Kerala High Court and remanded for reconsideration. After remand the Labour Court in the preliminary order found that the employee is a workman as defined under the Act and the industrial dispute is validly raised. With regard to the enquiry, it was found that the enquiry was fair and proper and findings are not perverse. But the Labour Court set aside the enquiry report on the ground that the enquiry officer was biased as enquiry was conducted by an employee of the Corporation and he also made certain observations against the workman, which were not necessary for considering whether there was misconduct or not. The relevant portion of the preliminary order is as follows:

" ... The workman challenges the validity of the enquiry. The findings of the enquiry officer are also challenged by him. As such first of all I shall see whether the enquiry held is proper and valid. In the enquiry 4 witnesses were examined on the side of the management and 19 documents were marked. Three documents were marked on the side of the workman. A perusal of the enquiry report and