( 1 ) WHAT the enlightened Legislature gave in its wisdom in the context of the felt needs of the time (the power under sec. 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act to reduce the punishment of dismissal or removal from service imposed on an industrial worker by an employer in a departmental proceeding) has been taken away by the Labour Court. Taken away inter alia on the ground that the power can be exercised only provided the worker (1) does not contest the proceedings (2) pleads guilty and (3) seeks mercy. And that provides the necessity for spelling out the principles for the exercise of these vital powers in the true spirit of the legislation.

( 2 ) THE question has arisen in the context of dismissal of an employee of the Gujarat Electricity Board (Board) working as a Helper for more than ten years as its Narol Sub Station by an order passed by the Exe- cutive Engineer Narol as per Annexure C dated 31/01/1975 The order of dismissal was passed in the context of two charges namely (1) absence from duty for about two days without obtaining prior per- mission and (2) theft of scrap material such as nuts bolts screws etc. valued at less than Rs. 50. 00. A reference was made to the Labour Court at Ahmedabad under sec. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 by the competent authority by his order dated 1/08/1975 for adjudica- tion of the industrial dispute raised by the employee questioning the legality and validity of the order of dismissal passed against him. The Labour Court at Ahmedabad disposed of the said reference by an award dated 20/01/1981 whereby it came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of dismissal and that it was not a case where lesser punishment deserved to be awarded in exercise of powers under sec. 11a of the Act. Thereupon the employee concerned has approached this Court by way of a petition under Art. 227 of the Cons- titution of India and has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned award rendered by the Labour Court on the premise that the award discloses errors apparent on the face of the record The impugned award requires to be quashed and set aside and the matter requires to be remitted to the Labour Court for 8 fresh decision in accordance with law in circumstances which will become evident in a short while the course of this discussion.

( 3 ) THE first reason why this course is required to be adopted is that the Labour Court has taken into account irrelevant factors in dealing with the plea for imposition of lesser punishment even if the employee failed in regard to the rest of the contentions. This plea was urged in order to invoke powers of the Labour Court under sec. 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act. No doubt the statute does not prescribe guide- lines for the exercise of these powers. All the same the Labour Court is required to decide the question on principles and on germane consi- derations without being influenced by irrelevant factors.

( 4 ) AN irrelevant factor which unduly weighed with the presiding off the Labour Court was that the employee had contested the petition. Says the learned Judge:" If he wanted the benefit of sec. 11a of the Act he could have admitted the charges before the Court and prayed for mercy straightaway rather than prefer- ring false allegations and commenting on each and every word of the statements of the witnesses which severe recorded at the inquiry and on the findings given by the inquiry officer. (Emphasis added)". An employee facing a proceeding which could result in his economic death has a right to contest and resist it. He is not bound to admit the charges or to plead guilty in order to enable him to invoke the jurisdic- tion of the Court under sec. 11a to reduce the penalty. No such condition was engrafted by the Legislature and the Labour Court could not amend the statute by introducing such a rider. That he is ultimately found guilty at the departmental proceeding does not necessarily mean that he wa