2000 Supreme(Bom) 676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
M.K. Bhuvaneshwaran.... Petitioner.
Versus
Premier Tyres Ltd. (M/s.) another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 809 of 1993, decided on 31-8-2000.
Advocates appeared :
Ms. Shobha Gopal, for the petitioner.
Milind Jadhav i/b Little Co., for respondents.

Headnote:Sections 28 and 44, Sch. IV, Items 9 and 10-Penalty of dismissal -Whether disproportionate-Employee misbehaving-Labour Court allowed re-instatement without backwages-Findings reversed by Industrial Court-As Labour Court had deprived worker of its back wages it was itself a sufficient penalty-No interference needed.- There is no charge akin to violence, assault or similar mis-behaviour or that he used language which was filthy or unbecoming of the language of civilised discourse. The charge at the highest against the petitioner was of shouting at the Personnel Manager. This is not to suggest that the conduct of the petitioner was such that it would not constitute a misconduct or that it was liable to be condoned. Misconduct it was. The question was of penalty. The narrow issue is that if in the circumstances of the case, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the ends of justice would be met, while ordering reinstatement, if the workman is deprived of back wages, the Industrial Court ought not have interfered with this finding in its limited revisional jurisdiction. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court exceeded the parameters of its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of the Labour Court.

       Section 28, Sch. IV, Items 9 and 10-Industrial Court reversed the findings of Labour Court-Grounds-Complaint barred by limitation-Condonation of delay-Held-Upon a decision the revisional court can not sit as Appellate Court an a decision already held-Court can interfere only where finding is totally unreasonable.-It was not open to the Industrial Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Act to disturb the finding of the Labour Court, which was a possible finding based on the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and 0ne which was arrived at after taking into account the past record of the workman in the present case the finding on the question of limitation was also challenged. The complaint was filed thereafter, about 4-1/2 months later and not after a delay of 7.1/2 months. The petitioner had duly filed an application for condonation of delay and having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, a sufficient ground for condonation was made out. It is a well settled principle of law that in a revision under Section 44 of the Act, the Industrial Court does not sit as a Court of appeal.

       Section 28, Sch. IV, Items 9 and 10-Early retirement-Whether compensation available-Employee having misconduct-Allowed reinstatement without backwages-Date of retirement still in dispute-Records could not be proceeded by any side-Held-It would be justified if back wages from date of reinstatement till 58 years is awarded to worker as compensation.- The payment of wages for the four years would meet the ends of justice as and by way of fair payment of compensation. the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted this position. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has not been in a position to formally record a concession on behalf of the respondents, it must be stated that the learned counsel assisted the Court in arriving at a conclusion of this case in a manner which is both fair and in accordance with justice. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner back wages from 29.5.1992 until the petitioner attained the age of 58 years. The petitioner will also be entitled to all the benefits to which he would be entitled under the law including gratuity and other terminal benefits. The petitioner shall also be entitled to other incidental benefits which would be allowable to him in view of the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner would be entitled to the usual spread over of the benefits.