Labour court exercised discretion judicially and not arbitrarily.

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 22 of 1987 dated 9.5.1991, the Management has filed the above writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows : It came to the knowledge of the petitioner-Management that the 2nd respondent herein was involving 'in acts of misconduct failing within the mischief of Standing Order No.35, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Running of a canteen in the petitioner Mill is a statutory duty. Accordingly the Mill Management had established its own canteen and it had printed coupons to be issued to workmen to enable them to buy edibles and snacks. Since the 2nd respondent was found in possession of bogus canteen tickets not officially printed and issued and he was selling the same to other employees, thereby causing detriment to the management and committing an act amounting to cheating. Citing these aforesaid acts as acts of misconduct, he was given a notice on 1.8.1985 calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for such acts. He submitted an explanation dated 16.8.1985 wherein he had admitted the first charge, but only pleaded that he was doing it beyond working hours. As regards the second charge, he denied the same. Hence a full-fledged enquiry was conducted in which witnesses in support of the charge were examined and enough opportunity was given to the 2nd Respondent to participate therein. After considering the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer gave a report that the two charges have been established. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner-Management, taking the view that the charges proved against the 2nd respondent are serious in nature and after taking note of his past record, issued an order on 25.2.1986, terminating the services of the 2nd respondent, against which he raised an Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court, first respondent herein after holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and reasonable, has passed an award setting aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, but only with half wages. The said award is being challenged in this writ petition by the management.

3. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. N. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kalyanaraman, learned counsel for 2nd respondent-workman.

4. Mr. N. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the management has vehemently contended that in the light of the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court in the preliminary issue, namely, the domestic enquiry was fair and reasonable, committed an error in modifying the order of termination into reinstatement with back wages to the extent of 50 per cent. He also submitted that in the light of its own finding on the preliminary issue, by modifying the punishment, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction vested under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, Mr. Kalyanaraman, learned counsel for the second respondent-workman has contended that taking note of the unblemished length of service for a period of 19 years, the award of the Labour Court modifying the order of termination into reinstatement with 50 per cent backwages is certainly in order and it requires no interference by this Court at this stage.

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

6. Even though except the facts leading to the imposition of punishment are unnecessary in order to appreciate the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court as well as the rivals contentions, it is but proper to refer the charge made against the second respondent-workman. The two charges levelled against the workman are as follows :

(i) During working hours and within the premises of the Mills, he was selling the snacks prepared by him privately at his house to the other workers; (ii) He was in possession of bogus canteen tickets, which he was selling t