The main legal point established is that the proportionality of the punishment must be considered in cases of proven misconduct, and past conduct may be irrelevant in determining the gravity of the proven misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule in both Petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, petitions are taken up for hearing.

2. The Petitioner-Wheels India Ltd. has filed Writ Petition No. 992 of 2022 challenging Part-II Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Pune dated 5 December 2019 directing it to reinstate the Respondent-Workman with continuity of service and 50% backwages for the period from 6 March 2014 to 24 December 2015. The reinstatement is directed essentially by holding that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. Otherwise in Part-I Award dated 13 December 2017, the Industrial Tribunal held the enquiry to be just, legal and proper and the findings in the enquiry to be not perverse. Thus, the employee failed in Part-I Award dated 13 December 2017, whereas succeeded in Part-II Award dated 5 December 2019. During pendency of Writ Petition No. 992 of 2022, the employee-Ganesh Bajirao Vishwasrao has filed Writ Petition No. 14018 of 2022 challenging the Part-I Award dated 13 December 2017. Since both the petitions arise out of the same proceedings being Reference (IT) No. 22 of 2014 decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, both the petitions are heard and decided together.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Wheels India Ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacturing steel wheels and has a factory at Plot No. C-1, MIDC, Ranjangaon (Ganpati), Karegaon, Taluka-Shirur, District-Pune. The Company had employed 215 Workmen in its factory whose conditions of service are governed by the contract of employment vix. Appointment Order, Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and various settlements signed by the Company with Wheels India workers’ Union. The Respondent/Workman joined the services of the Company on 9 January 2006 and was designated as a Operator in the Tools Room Department.

4. Wheels India Workers Union raised a demand for issuance of shares of the company to the permanent employees. Since the demand was not met, the Union issued notice for stoppage of work w.e.f. 11 March 2011. Respondent-Workman was suspended on 9 March 2011 alongwith five other employees on the allegations of giving threats to trainees and contract employees. Respondent was served with the charge-sheet dated 1 April 2011 alleging that on 7, 8 and 9 March 2011 instead of performing duties, Respondent caused obstruction to the work of temporary trainees, contract workers and threatened them of consequences if they resumed work on the next day. It was further alleged that on 9 March 2011, all temporary trainees, term contract and contract workers did not report for work leading to halt of scheduled manufacturing activity and caused loss to the company. Respondent-Workman gave his reply to the charge-sheet dated 7 April 2011, which was not found satisfactory and the Company decided to conduct an enquiry into the charge-sheet. One Mr. V.G. Deshpande, Advocate was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Respondent-Workman was permitted to be represented by Mr. Kolhatkar, Advocate, who cross-examined the management witnesses. At the end of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report on 3 January 2013 holding the Respondent-Workman guilty of charges leveled against him. Copy of the Enquiry Report was furnished to the Respondent-Workman, who submitted his representation vide letter dated 2 April 2013. The employer thereafter passed order dated 6 March 2014 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the Respondent. The Respondent-Workman raised a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pune and directly filed an application under the provisions of Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal, Pune. He filed his Statement of Claim, which was resisted by Petitioner by filing Written Statement. The Industrial Co