Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 1283
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. Kumar, Arali Nagaraj, JJ.
Management of Indian Institute of Management, rep. by its Chief Administrative Officer —Appellant
Vs.
D. Manikya —Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 379 of 2010 (L) C/w 2457 of 2010
Decided on : 23-11-2010
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Kasturi, Kasturi Associates, R.G. Sejekhan, for the Appellant
The punishment for proved misconduct should be proportionate to the established misconduct, and denial of back wages can be a form of punishment.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Misconduct - Section 10(4-A) - Section 11(A)
Fact of the Case:
The workman, a plumber, was dismissed for misconduct. The Labour Court found one charge of insubordination proved and set aside the dismissal, directing reinstatement with all benefits. The High Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge of insubordination was proved, and the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. It modified the order to withhold two annual increments cumulatively.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the proportionality of the punishment, and the interpretation of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reinstatement with all benefits was not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination, and denial of back wages could be a form of punishment. It also emphasized that in cases of proved misconduct, the punishment should be proportionate to the established misconduct.
Final Decision: Writ Appeal 2457/2010 was dismissed, and Writ Appeal 379/2010 was partly allowed, imposing the punishment of withholding two increments cumulatively.
N. Kumar and Arali Nagaraj, JJ.— Cost of Rs.. 5000/-is paid.
1. These writ appeals are filed against a common order passed by the learned single Judge on November 16, 2009 upholding the order of the Labour Court.
2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original proceedings,
3. The workmen was working as a plumber in the management institute. He was served with a charge sheet on September 10, 1991, Three charges of misconduct were framed against him. Enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the misconduct in respect of the charges is proved. Acting on the said report, the management dismissed the workmen from service. Aggrieved by the same, workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'Act' for short) before the Labour Court. He contended that domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper and challenged the order on merits. On Preliminary issue regarding domestic enquiry, Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry is not fair and proper. However opportunity was given for the management to prove the charge. Management examined seven witnesses produced 16 documents and workmen was also examined and produced documents. On adducing oral and documentary evidence charge No. 1 and 2 not proved whereas charge No. 3 is proved. Thereafter Labour Court exercised power under Section 11(A) of the Act and held that the punishment of dismissal imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct established and therefore it set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. As a punishment what is imposed is denial of back wages from the date of dismissal till the date he was ordered to pay interim relief. Aggrieved by the said order of Labour Court both the management and the workmen preferred two writ petitions before this Court. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order holding that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on charge No. 3 is supported by legal evidence, therefore No. case for ' interference is made out. Similarly High Court with regard to the findings of Labour Court held that punishment is shockingly disproportionate to proved misconduct. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned single Judge both the management and as well as workmen filed the appeals.
4. Sri. Kasturi, Learned senior counsel appearing for the management contended when once the misconduct was held to be proved, punishment has to be imposed. Denial of back wages is not punishment at all and therefore Labour Court committed a serious error in directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Having regard to the nature of the charge, that is disobedience, it was not just and proper to have interfered with the order of dismissal.
5. Per contra the workman pointed out that charge No. 3 held to be proved is not specific. It is an after thought. The evidence on record does not prove the said charge, Secondly it is contended that it is settled law that inordinate delay in settling the matter, the award passed by the Labour Court should be upheld without interference. There is No. legal evidence produced on record to substantiate the misconduct in respect of charge No. 3. Seen from any angle No. case of interference is made out.
6. From the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, it is clear as against three charges framed against the workmen only charge of insubordination is held to be proved. The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence on record in so far as charge No. 3 is concerned held that the oral evidence of M.W.6 coupled with various materials placed on record and evidence of M.W.1 SH. Krishnegowda, M.W.2 Sri Narayanaswamy goes to establish that the workmen on August 29, 1991 at about 9.50 a.m. behaved rudely, and arrogantly with M.W.6 when questioned for coming late by ten minutes. It appe
