IMPORTANT POINT
The Labour Court can award compensation instead of reinstatement if the dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct, considering the relationship between the employee and employer.

JUDGMENT :

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.D. Rahevar for the petitioners and learned council Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent no.1.

2. By these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the separate Judgment and Orders passed by the Presiding Officer(S.D.) Labour Court No.1 at Bharuch in Reference (LCB) Case No.67 of 2018 and Reference (LCB) Case No.68 of 2018 whereby the Labour Court has awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the petitioners along with cost of Rs.1,000/- in lieu of backwages and reinstatement.

3. For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.17172 of 2019 in case of Mr. G. Dasharathan is treated as a lead case.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1. The petitioner was serving as operator and C.L. with the respondent no.1-Company. The appointment letter was issued on 27.02.2013 but the petitioner joined the Company from 19.02.2012. The petitioner was on probation for the period of one year as per the appointment letter.

4.2. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as operator and C.L. since 05.06.1996 as stated in the statement of claim and was transferred to the respondent no.1-Company in the year 2001 with an assurance that he would be sent back to the original place within two to three years but was not sent back to his original place of work after two to three years and also no salary was increased, the petitioner along with similarly situated workmen approached the Managing Director, at Chennai and proceeded for strike.

4.3. The respondent no.1-Company conducted an inquiry and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct for his services and was terminated without payment of any compensation.

4.4. The petitioner was also served with charge-sheet on 20.10.2016. However, the petitioner and the workmen during the meeting with the management decided that they should not accept the offer made by the management and not to follow the instructions of the management and inspite of the notice issued to resume their work.

4.5. The petitioner and other workmen continued the strike from 21.10.2016 which amounted to serious misconduct under the model standing order. The respondent no.1- Company suspended the petitioner from duty without pay with immediate effect pending inquiry and was paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the law.

4.6. The charges of disobedience and strike in the premises of the respondent no.1-Company and stopping the work which includes the disorderly or indecent behaviour and refusal to accept the orders of the superior were found to be proved in the inquiry.

4.7. It also appears from the record that during the conciliation proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), the respondent Company filed detailed statement on 30.07.2018 disclosing the subsistence allowance of Rs.3,17,655/- was paid to the petitioner from November-2016 to May-2018.

4.8. Thereafter the Conciliation Officer, Labour Commissioner referred the matter to the Labour Court by making a reference as to whether the petitioner should be reinstated on his original post with continuity of service and with full backwages. The Labour Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the submissions made on behalf of both the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent no.1- Company exceeded in use of its discretion by inflicting disproportionate punishment of removal from service to the petitioner and found that the discharge of the workmen from the services was not just and proper. The Labour Court exercised the jurisdiction and discretion vested in it under Section 11A of the Act and instead of punishment of discharge of the service from the petitioner by the respondent no.1-Company after considering the fact that there was no cordial relation between the petitioner and management of the respondent no.1-Company, the Labour Court awarded the l