The Court held that the Labour Court's order regarding the punishment was disproportionate to the charges and amounted to an embarrassment to the management. The Court further held that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not intended to cause such an embarrassment to the management.

KANAKARAJ, J.

The Writ Appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge, dated October 9, 1996 made in W. M. P. No. 1 1044 of 1996 in an Application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending disposal of Writ Petition No. 14252 of 1995. The said order was assv as a common order in W.M.P. Nos. 22979 f 11 1995 and 11043 and 11044 of 1996. All the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions arose out of the said main Writ Petition No. 14252 of 1995 seeking to set aside the award passed in 1. D. No. 152 of 1992, dated January 19, 1995. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we have, with the consent of parties, taken up the said writ petition No. 14252 of 1995 itself for final disposal. We will therefore refer to the parties by their rank and status in the said writ petition No. 14232 of 2 1995.

2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Sugar Mill. The second respondent was employed as a Cane Assistant. A charge sheet, dated June 9, 2 1986 was issued against him, framing three charges to which we will make a reference a little later. After receiving the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner 3 had terminated the services of the second re- spondent with effect from November 13, 1986.An Industrial Dispute was raised as 1. D. No. 152 of 1992 and an award was passed on January 19, 1995, holding that the charges had been proved against the petitioner and that the order of punishment was disproportionate to the proved charges and therefore the Labour Court directed that the second respondent shall be reinstated without backwages and that he shall be treated as a fresh recruit in the same post. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said award relating to the imposition of punishment. According to the second respondent, the order of the Labour Court was perfectly legal and not liable to be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The award itself comprises of two parts. The first relating to the validity of the enquiry held by the petitioner and the second part relating to the evidence adduced before the Labour Court and the findings thereon. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was vitiated, inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the second respondent to understand the charges levelled against him and accordingly set aside the Enquiry Report, Ex. M 17. On the management offering to lead evidence, to prove the charges, the Labour Court examined six witnesses for the management and 0 marked as many as 21 exhibits on the side of the Management. The second respondent workman examined himself as a witness, but did notfile auni document. The first charge against the smoni respondent was that he was negligent in the performance of his duties. Specific instances were detailed under the said charge. In particular, the second respondent had failed to .5 register the cane in the land of one Munuswamy so much so, when Munuswamy wanted a cutting order, the second respondent had asked the cane in the land of the daughter of Munuswamy, which is totally against the rules and directions. 10 He also failed to register the sugarcane grown in the land of one Nachlappan. The second charge relates to the second respondent, collecting a sum of Rs.2551- from one Munuswamy as membership fee, but not having remitted the same in time. This is said to amount to temporary misappropriation. The third charge relates to the demanding of bribe of Rs. 1001- from one Balasundaram and Rs.2001- from one P. K. Natesan. We will now advert to the categoric 2C findings of the Labour Court on the above charges which will form the basis for imposing the punishment. The findings of the U. bour Court have to be kept in mind, while examining the plethora of decisions cited by the Management as well as the worker. Each case will depend upon the particular fact., and circumstances of the case