Point of Law: Stage for interference under Section 11-A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Sangeeta Pahwa waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction for quashing and setting aside the award dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No. 118 of 2012. By the aforesaid award, the petitioner is directed to reinstate with continuity of service with 20% back wages and all other consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent, while in general shift (portion to be taken from the file)

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.M.Patel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that common department inquiry for both and charge-sheet is conducted against the respondent as per following the principles of natural justice and certificate standing orders. The Inquiry Officer, thereafter vide his report dated 09.04.2012/ 08.05.2011 has held the charges proved against the respondent. A show-cause notice was issued on 01.05.2012 calling upon the respondent-workman. Since, grave and serious charges leveled against him were proved, the workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 11.06.2012, which gave rise to the industrial dispute and culminated into Reference (LCB) No.118 of 2012.

4. Learned Senior advocate Mr. K.M.Patel has submitted that though the Labour Court vide order dated 03.03.2019 passed below application Exhibit 9, has held the inquiry proceedings as fair and in accordance with principles of natural justice, however, while passing the impugned order, the Labour Court again re-appreciated the validity of proceedings and set aside the order of dismissal. He has submitted that the Labour Court was influenced with the factor that the petitioner had not produced the original documents of the inquiry proceedings however, the photocopy of the same was produced and on the said premise, the inquiry proceeding were held to be valid. Further, it is submitted that another factor which has weighed upon the Labour Court is with record to non production of the certified copies of the standing orders. Hence, it is submitted that the Labour Court has fallen in error by holding that it was unable to interpret the provisions of the standing orders under which the penalty of punishment was passed. It is submitted that the aforesaid observation is also misconceived since the provisions of the standing orders were already incorporated in the charge-sheet, which was issued to the respondent-workman. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel has submitted that the Labour Court has also erred in considering the aspect that it was not necessary to impose any harsh punishment of dismissal on the workman since he had rendered 17 years of service and was not a habitual offender.

6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms.Sangeeta Pahwa appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the workman, had in fact, filed an application dated 25.04.2012 seeking the certified copies of the documents, however, the same were not provided. She has submitted that the petitioner was not permitted to enter into the premises of the Company to attend the proceedings and without considering the above aspect, the Inquiry officer decided the departmental proceeding as ex parte. It is submitted that despite a specific request is made by the respondent-workman to provide the documentary evidence of inquiry proceedings, certified copies of the standing order, the petitioner company did not provide the same.

7. Learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa has submitted that looking to the misconduct, the Labour Court while exercising the powers under Section 11(A) of the Act, has precisely set aside the punishment order, since the petitioner has served for almost 17 years. It is further submitted that the Labour Court should have appreciated the fact that the departmental proceedings are no