Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (CSPDCL), Durg (C.G.) - Petitioner
Versus
Mohd. Anees, S/o Mohd. Wahid and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2005
Decided On : 17-11-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel.
For the Respondent: Mr. Punit Ruparel.
Headnote:
M-P- Industrial Relations Act - Sections 61 and 107-A - Enquiry - Punishment - Court stating that he is regular employee of Board and his services have been illegally terminated by Board- Labour Court by its order while holding that domestic enquiry has been conducted fairly and it valid interfered with quantum of punishment and reinstated him in service with 50% back wages- Being aggrieved against order of reinstatement and award back wages petitioner herein preferred appeal before Industrial Court- By impugned order Industrial Court partly set aside order of Labour Court granting back wages to respondent employee however maintained order of reinstatement granted by Labour Court- petitioner CSPDCL has now preferred this petition questioning order of Labour Court duly affirmed by Industrial Court to extent of reinstating petitioner by interfering with order of termination so passed against respondent herein –Held, Power Section be exercised judiciously and interference is possible only when Tribunal is not satisfied with findings and further concludes that punishment imposed by management is highly disproportionate to degree of guilt of workman concerned- Besides Tribunal has to give reasons as why it is not satisfied either with findings or with quantum of punishment and that such reason should not be fanciful or whimsical but re should be good reasons Court- Labour Court in its brief order firstly held that enquiry against respondent is proper and valid and in last paragraph it has further held that in enquiry charges against respondent have not been proved and directed for reinstatement with back wages and no reasons much less valid and good reasons have been recorded for holding so- In appeal Industrial Court in its brief order interfered with back wages awarded to respondent and directed for stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect- Neither Court nor Industrial Court considered whether punishment awarded respondent employee is disproportionate to misconduct alleged and said to have been established by petitioner herein- No reasons have been assigned even by Industrial Court and it has been interfered with- Reasons much less good reasons ought to have assigned with reference to charges levelled and brought by management for alleged misconduct which has not been done while considering reasonableness of punishment awarded by employer whether it is commensurate with misconduct committed by delinquent employee or it is shockingly or strikingly disproportionate to his misconduct by assigning good and valid reasons in support his reasoning particularly when he is interfering with punishment imposed by employer impugned order passed by Industrial Court and Labour Court to extent of directing reinstatement are set aside matter is remitted back to Court for consideration on question of quantum of punishment with reference to charges that have been found to be established against respondent- Labour Court would only consider question what would be appropriate punishment on charges so established by order Same will be considered within three months from date of appearance of parties before Court - Petition allowed
1. The respondent employee was appointed by the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board on the post of Driver on daily wage basis. He remained absent from 15-8-1994 to 16-9-1994 and pursuant thereto, charge-sheet was issued to him on 5-10-1994 and departmental enquiry was instituted against him for unauthorised absence, disobeying the order of superior officer and suppression of material fact that prior to joining the services of M.P. Electricity Board, he was working with the Irrigation Department. Upon conclusion of enquiry, he was terminated by the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board on 19-8-1995.
2. The respondent employee preferred an application under Section 31(3) read with Sections 61 and 107-A of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court stating inter alia that he is regular employee of the Board and his services have been illegally terminated by the Board. The Labour Court by its order dated 12-7-2000 while holding that domestic enquiry has been conducted fairly and it is valid interfered with the quantum of punishment and reinstated him in service with 50% back wages. Being aggrieved against the order of reinstatement and award of 50% back wages, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the Industrial Court. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court partly set aside the order of the Labour Court granting back wages to the respondent employee, however, maintained the order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court. The petitioner CSPDCL has now preferred this petition questioning the order of the Labour Court duly affirmed by the Industrial Court to the extent of reinstating the petitioner by interfering with the order of termination so passed against the respondent herein.
3. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Labour Court having held that domestic enquiry has properly and validly been conducted consequent to which the respondent employee has been punished, legally erred in interfering with the quantum of punishment, as the punishment awarded is not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct which has been proved against the respondent employee. He would rely upon the order of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Devkinandan Tiwari v. State Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh and others 1990 M.P.L.J. 653 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005) 3 SCC 401.
4. Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would submit that even if domestic enquiry is held to be valid and proper, the Labour Court is empowered to interfere with the quantum of punishment as in this case the allegation against the respondent employee is only that he remained absent from 15-8-1994 to 16-9-1994 and there are some other charges which are said to have been proved and are not such, which warrant imposition of punishment of termination; therefore, punishment of termination from service is highly disproportionate and it has rightly been interfered with by the Labour Court and rightly confirmed by the Industrial Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.
6. The respondent was appointed as daily wager by the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board and after concluding domestic enquiry instituted against the respondent employee, his services were terminated by order dated 19-8-1995. In an application filed by the respondent employee, the Labour Court framed three issues including issue No.1 as to whether the enquiry held against the respondent employee is valid and proper. The said issue regarding validity of domestic enquiry was considered as preliminary issue and on 7-6-2000, it has been held by the Labour Court that domestic enquiry held against the respondent employee is valid and proper. It is not in dispute that legality and validity of the order dated 7-6-
