IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the proven charges of misconduct, and the invocation of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act was justified in this case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Employer – Company has filed this petition challenging the award dated 01.05.2014 of Labour Court-Himmatnagar, in Reference (LCH) No.11 of 2012 wherein the petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity and without backwages.

2. Facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under :

2.1. Respondent No.1 – workman had joined the services with petitioner – Company as Apprentice lineman w.e.f. 04.01.1990. After appointment, he was transferred to various places. On 15.07.2008, he was served with the show-cause notice. Pursuant to the charge-sheet, the departmental inquiry was initiated and upon conclusion of the inquiry and upon charges being proved, the order dated 02.09.2008 terminating the service of the respondent – workman was passed. Against the order of termination dated 02.09.2008, the respondent – workman preferred departmental First Appeal which came to be rejected on 06.11.2009. Against the order of rejection of appeal dated 06.11.2009, the workman preferred Second Appeal, wherein the order dated 02.09.2008 was confirmed by order dated 22.11.2010. Against order dated 02.09.2008 and 22.11.2010, a mercy petition was preferred before the higher authority of the petitioner – company wherein the authority directed to conduct de-novo departmental inquiry. Pursuant to the order of Managing Director of petitioner-Company, appointment of inquiry officer was done, wherein in de-novo inquiry, the inquiry officer held the workman guilty for charges No.1, 3 and 8. Thereafter, the order of termination dated 11.11.2011 was passed, aggrieved by the order of termination dated 11.11.2011, the respondent raised dispute before Labour Court, Himmatnagar registered as Reference (LCH) Case No.11 of 2012. The Labour Court, Himmatnagar upon adjudication directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and without backwages, aggrieved by which, employer has filed petition is filed.

3. Heard Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate for the respondent – workman.

4. Mr. Hasurkar, learned advocate for the petitioner – Company submitted that the award of the Labour Court dated 01.05.2014 in Reference (LCH) No.11 of 2012 is erroneous on the following grounds:

4.1. That the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (“the Act” for short) is to be invoked only in cases where the principles of natural justice are not followed. In this case, the inquiry proceedings were conducted after following the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the award of the Labour Court is erroneous. The Labour Court has erred by observing that the quantum of punishment is disproportionate. Section 11 A of the Act is to be invoked in the circumstances referred therein. In this case, all the conditions stipulated in Section 11 A are not fulfilled and, therefore, the interference by the Labour Court is erroneous. The finding of the Labour Court that only one charge is proved, is incorrect. On the contrary, all the charges levelled against the workman are proved and, therefore, the award is factually incorrect. Even the past record of the respondent workman is also to be seen and where the Labour Court has recorded that no past record was produced which is factually incorrect. The petitioner – Company had produced past record which the Labour Court has erred in not considering even the past complaints were also not considered and, therefore, there is a factual error in the findings recorded by the Labour Court which deserves interference of this Court. Learned advocate mainly relying upon the inquiry proceedings and the findings recorded has submitted that as there were discrepancies with regard to maintaining the record of the Corporation in relation to the amount received from the customers, the charges being serious in nature, the award of the Labour Court reducing the penalty, is erroneous. He thus, submitted that the award of the Labour Court being