The court can interfere with the punishment if it is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, as per Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

1. The Award dated 18.2.05 passed in I.D. No. 152/01 by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of KSTRC. By the Award, the order of dismissal dated 8.2.01 passed by the petitioner against the respondent was set aside.

2. The respondent, a driver in the petitioner – Corporation was issued with an Articles of Charge dated 1.1.2000 and was subjected to domestic enquiry on the following charges:

“KANNADAM”

3. The respondent did not submit any reply to the Articles of Charge. An enquiry Officer was appointed to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the Articles of Charge. The enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted report dated 15.6.01, holding the charges levelled against the respondent as established. By furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and issuing show-cause notice, finding the charged misconduct to be proved, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 8.8.01 and dismissed the respondent from service.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a claim under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short), in the Labour Court, which was opposed by the petitioner by filing counter statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues were raised. The respondent filed a memo, conceding the fairness of the enquiry held against him by the Management. Hence, issue No. 1 was answered in the affirmative. Exs. M1 to M12 pertaining to the domestic enquiry were marked with consent. The respondent deposed and marked Exs. W1 and W2. After appreciating the record, the Labour Court held that, the enquiry Officer was correct in coming to the conclusion that the respondent has committed the misconduct alleged against him. Having examined the case with regard to the proportionality of punishment, the Labour Court held that, the punishment is certainly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the respondent and therefore, the order of dismissal dated 8.8.01 was set aside and by imposing the punishment i.e., reduction of wages to the minimum basic applicable to the post of driver in the Corporation and by denying the backwages, the Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent into the original post with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Aggrieved, the Management-Corporation has filed this writ petition.

5. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the fairness of the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner against the respondent having been conceded and the Labour Court after examining the record having arrived at the conclusion that, the enquiry Officer was correct in coming to the conclusion that the respondent has committed the misconduct alleged against him and having found that the respondent not only misbehaved with the superior officials but abused them in filthy language and made attempts to assault them and caused loss to the property of the Corporation, which amounts to terrorising the superior officials and preventing them from taking any lawful action against the respondent and also the default history sheet of the respondent showing that he involved in similar misconducts in the past on six occasions for which minor punishments were imposed with an intention to give opportunity for improvement having not brought any good effect, ought not to have interfered with the just punishment imposed, in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act. Learned counsel contended that, the interference with the quantum of punishment is contrary to the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions, specially, in view of the unruly and terrorizing conduct of the respondent. She submitted that, continuance of the respondent in service being detrimental to the smooth functioning and discipline, the Corporation having lost confidence, passed the order of dismissal, which ought not to have been interfere with. It was su