2009 Supreme(SC) 1375

2009(6) Supreme 284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Deepak Verma, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation — Appellant
versus
Nanhe Lal Kushwaha — Respondent
Civil Appean No. 5114 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4224/2009]
Decided on : 04-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:Labour Laws – Termination of services of respondent conductor by appellant corporation for carrying passengers without tickets – On reference of industrial dispute, Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent with 75% back-wages – Writ Petition thereagainst-Partly allowed by High Court directing that award of Labour Court shall stand modified to the extent that no back-wages shall be payable to the workman concerned but he may be given continuity of service for the purposes of retrial benefits – Appeal – Held industrial tribunal or a labour court may interfere with a quantum of punishment awarded by the employer in exercise of its powerunder Section 11A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act but, ordinarily, the discretion exercised by the employer should not be interfered with – Labour Court did not assign any sufficient and cogent reason as to on what premise the punishment imposed upon the respondent by the employer, could 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 manner – High Court also, despite noticing submissions made on behalf of 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, had not been stated – Respondent was appointed as a conductor and in that capacity was holding the position of trust, it is not the amount which would be very material for the purpose of determining the quantum of punishment – He was charged for commission of similar misconducts on six occasions; at least misconduct has been found to be proved in respect of two charges even by the Labour Court-Impugned judgment held unsustainable – Appeal allowed. (Paras 7 to 13)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Services of respondent conductor were terminated herein in the instant case by appellant corporation for carrying passengers without tickets.On reference of industrial dispute, Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent with 75% back-wages.Writ Petition thereagainst was Partly allowed by High Court directing that award of Labour Court shall stand modified to the extent that no back-wages shall be payable to the workman concerned but he may be given continuity of service for the purposes of retrial benefits.

        2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Labour Court did not assign any sufficient and cogent reason as to on what premise the punishment imposed upon the respondent by the employer, could 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 manner. High Court also, despite noticing submissions made on behalf of 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, had not been stated. Respondent was appointed as a conductor and in that capacity was holding the position of trust, it is not the amount which would be very material for the purpose of determining the quantum of punishment. He was charged for commission of similar misconducts on six occasions; at least misconduct has been found to be proved in respect of two charges even by the Labour Court. Impugned judgment hence held unsustainable. Appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.