( 1 ) THIS petition, though styled as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is in effect a petition under article 227 of the Constitution. The petition challenges the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2003 made by the industrial Court in Appeal (I. C.) No. 30 of 2000 whereunder award dated 22nd September, 2000 made by the Labour Court, surat in T. Application No. 399 of 1988 came to be confirmed.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the respondent was appointed as a clerk on 6th July, 1970 by the petitioner " bank. According to the petitioner-bank, the respondent had been negligent in discharging his duties and was insubordinate to his superiors in the hierarchy of the petitioner - bank, and therefore, vide charge-sheet dated 31st July, 1987 domestic inquiry was initiated against the respondent - workman. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 21st March, 1988 finding the respondent guilty of the charges leveled against him. Thereupon, considering the gravity and the seriousness of the charges which stood proved, a show cause notice dated 9th May, 1988 was issued by the petitioner-bank calling upon the respondent to explain why his services should not be terminated. On 17th May, 1988 the Bank staff Committee, after considering the explanation tendered by the respondent, passed a resolution recommending termination of services of the respondent. The petitioner-bank thereupon made an order on 24th May, 1988 terminating the services of the respondent.

( 3 ) AGAINST the aforesaid termination order respondent went before the Labour Court by way of T. Application No. 399 of 1988. The labour Court by its order dated 7th January, 1992 upheld the legality and validity of the domestic inquiry but came to conclusion that the punishment imposed on the respondent-workman was disproportionate, and thus, directed the petitioner-bank to reinstate the respondent to his original post with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages. The petitioner-bank went in appeal before the Industrial Court but failed in the appeal, and by impugned judgment and order dated 18th february, 2003 the award made by the Labour Court came to be confirmed.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner-bank contended that both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court had misdirected themselves in law and exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in them. That as the proceedings were under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (the BIR Act) the labour Court and the Industrial Court could not have interfered with the punishment given by the management. That the provisions of Section 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the I. D. Act) could not have been considered by both the subordinate courts. That even if the provisions of Section 11a of the I. D. Act had not been referred to by the subordinate courts, in effect, the subordinate Courts had exercised powers which are only available under Section 11a of the I. D. Act, and in light of the fact that the language employed by Section 78 of the BIR Act was distinct such powers could not have been exercised, namely, reduction in quantum of punishment or modification of the punishment, especially when both the labour Court and the Industrial Court had accepted the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. It was further contended that the order of the Labour Court suffered from the vice of absence of reasoning, for interfering with or modifying the punishment meted out by the management and, therefore, also the Industrial court could not have confirmed the said order. In support of the submissions reliance was placed on " i. The Manekchowk and Ahmedabad Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. I. G. Thakore, president, Industrial Court and Anr. , 1969 (10) G. L. R. 786; ii. Parikshatbhai Madhavbhai Patel Vs. Division Controller, G. S. R. T. C. , surat, 2000 (1) G. L. H. 31; iii. New Shorrock Mills Vs. Maheshbhai T. Rao, 1997 (2) G. L. R. 1053; iv. Chairman and Managing Director,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document