The Labour Court can reduce penalties for misconduct when deemed disproportionate, ensuring the evidence sufficiently supports the charges against an employee.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This petition is filed challenging the award in terms of which the petitioner/employer is directed to reinstate the respondent/ workman, by setting aside the penalty of termination of service.

3. The impugned award directs the respondent to be reinstated with continuity of service by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and only 25% back wages. In other words, 75% back wages is denied.

4. The award is not questioned by the respondent/workman and same has attained finality as against the respondent/workman insofar as denial of 75% back wages and withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

5. The petitioner/employer is before this Court.

6. Admittedly, the respondent was employed in the year 1999 as Cane Sub-Inspector under the petitioner. On 30.06.2003, charge memo was issued against the respondent alleging that the respondent is collecting money unauthorizedly from the farmers, with an intention to make wrongful gain for himself. Another charge is relating to an act of insubordination, wherein he has allegedly insulted the Cane Superintendent in the presence of the farmers and the said incident made the Government to issue a letter to the petitioner/employer and caused embarrassment to the petitioner establishment /employer. The respondent/workman disputed the charges.

7. The domestic enquiry was held. As far as the charge relating to the habit of collecting money from the farmers unauthorisedly with an intention to make a wrongful gain is concerned, the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that only one witness is examined to support the charge and other farmers from whom the petitioner has allegedly collected the amount are not examined and the finding is recorded in favour of the respondent/workman and against the petitioner/employer, holding that charge is not proved.

8. As far as the second charge relating to the incident said to have taken place on 08.10.2007 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the second charge is proved. Accordingly, the petitioner was removed from employment. The respondent raised the industrial dispute.

9. Before the Labour Court, enquiry was held to be fair and proper. The parties were permitted to lead evidence on the plea of victimization.

10. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the first charge relating to the habit of collecting money unauthorisedly from the farmers is not established and has come to the conclusion that the penalty of dismissal imposed on the respondent/workman is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the respondent/workman on the premise that said charge No.8 does not warrant the penalty of dismissal.

11. Accordingly, the penalty of dismissal is set aside and lesser punishment is awarded as noticed above.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that though the charge relating to habitual unauthorised collection of money from the farmers refers to the repeated collection of money from the farmers, merely because the employer has examined only one farmer, does not mean that the charge levelled against the workman relating to unauthorised collection of the money is not established. Thus he would urge that there was no scope for the Labour Court to interfere with the penalty of dismissal.

13. In addition, it is also urged that Charge No.8 which is relating to the incident that has taken place on 08.10.2007 is held to be established by the Enquiry Officer as w