M. K. THAKKER
United Phosphorous Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Member – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J.
1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch in reference LCB No.376 of 1998 dated 26.04.2005 whereby, petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent no.2 with 20% back wages.
2. The facts needed to be discussed for the disposal of the case is that:
2.1. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and in the sale of various chemicals and pesticides etc. The respondent no.2 who is the workman came to be engaged by the petitioner company in December 1989. Previously, respondent no.2 was working in company namely Ficom Organics Ltd. from where he resigned as he was caught in theft and subsequently, raised industrial dispute on the allegation of dismissal of service. While filling up the form of personal detail with the petitioner company at the time of appointment, that fact has not been disclosed by the respondent no.2. On joining with the present petitioner as Wireman, his work was found unsatisfactory and he was in habit of frequently remaining absent without prior leave or intimation. For such unauthorized leave
L&T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N.Udayakumar reported in (2008) 1 SCC 224
M.P.Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma reported in (2005) 3 SCC 401
M.P.Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma reported in (2005) 3 SCC 401
The Labour Court's interference with the dismissal of an employee was unjustified as the dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct, despite the leave balance.
The Labour Court cannot modify disciplinary punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct; failure to provide cogent reasons for modification renders the interfere....
workman has retired from the services and, therefore, whatever benefit is available to the workman, after her retirement, needs to be granted to her due to the order of reinstatement with continuity ....
The Labour Court must record subjective satisfaction regarding the proportionality of punishment before modifying a dismissal to a lesser penalty under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Labour Court cannot interfere with the punishment order if the departmental inquiry is fair and proper.
Discretion under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously; compassion cannot be the basis for modifying penalties in labor disputes involving misconduct.
A Labour Court's discretion to modify penalties under Section 11-A of the ID Act requires clear findings of disproportionate punishment or mitigating circumstances; mere length of service does not su....
Misconducts - Award Modified - Workman was earning by plying rickshaw since his dismissal i.e. from 1990, appropriate relief may be moulded in favour of workman by tilting balance -Workman be paid re....
Point of Law : Satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or oth....
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings r....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.