The Labour Court has wide powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to set aside wrongful orders of discharge or dismissal and to impose reasonable punishments, including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.

MADHUSUDAN RAO, J.

( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions involve common questions for decision and they are therefore being disposed of under a common judgment. The petitioner in each case is the A. P. State Road Transport corporation represented by the concerned District Manager or the depot Manager. The respondent in each of the cases is either a conductor or driver employed as such in the A. P. State Road transport Corporation (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Corporation or the management ). On the ground that the conductor or the driver committed certain act or acts of misconduct, charges were framed by the Corporation against the various employees. After due inquiry, the management passed orders removing the employees under Regulation 9 (2) of the A. P. State Road Transport Corporation employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Corporation s Conduct regulations ). At the instance of the employees who disputed the correctness of the orders of removal, the matter was referred to the labour Court. After holding the due enquiry the Labour Court agreed with the finding of the management that each of the employees was guilty of misconduct. The Labour Court, however, held that the order of removal, under the circumstances of the case of each employee, was unjustified and accordingly directed reinstatement either without back-wages or with back-wager for a shorter period than during which the employee was out of employment. The management has come up to this court with these writ petitions questioning the validity and propriety of the orders of the Labour Court.

( 2 ) THE case of the Corporation is that once the Labour Court agrees with the finding of the domestic authority to the effect that the employee is guilty of misconduct, it is not open to the Labour Court to direct reinstatement merely without back-wages but without imposing any of the lesser penalties provided in the Corporation s Conduct Regulations. According to the corporation an employee found guilty of misconduct both by the management and the Labour Court should be awarded a punishment specified in the Corporation s conduct Regulations even if the order of removal is set aside as being unjustified. It is urged that mere denial of back-wages is no penalty in the case of an employee found guilty of misconduct even if removal is found unjustified and that at any rate, with-holding backwages is not a specified penalty in the Corporation s conduct Regulations and that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to impose a penalty not provided in the Corporation s Conduct Regulations.

( 3 ) MESSRS. G. Ramachandrarao, V. Jagannadharao, K, Satyanarayana, b. V. Subbaiah, K. Narasimham, A. K, Jayaprakashrao, r. i. Pandurangarao and Miss V. Lakshmidevi, the learned advocates for the respondents on the other hand contend that the powers of the labour Court under Section 11-A of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, 1947 are wide and that even in cases where the Labour Court finds the employee guilty of misconduct but finds that the order of removal is unjustified, the Labour Court is not bound to impose a punishment and much less a penalty specified in the Regulations or Standing orders of the Management. The respondents support the awards passed by the Labour Court as being perfectly within its jurisdiction and eminently justified.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the contention it may be necessary to set down the relevant section 11-A of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, 1947. It reads as follows:-"where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workmen has been referred to a Labour Court, tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document