Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 911
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
S. Sivam
Versus
The Presiding Officer Labour Court Madurai & Another
W.P. No. 15509 of 2000
Decided On :03-02-2010
For the Petitioner:D. Saravanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, Rajnish Pathiyal, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which empowers the Labour Court to re-appraise evidence and alter the punishment imposed by an employer.
Headnote:
Industrial Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 11A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a workman, was dismissed from service by the state-owned transport corporation on charges of causing an accident while driving a bus. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the matter was taken up by the Labour Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court initially held that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, the Court found that the Labour Court did not keep in mind the true import of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act when passing the impugned award.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Labour Court correctly applied the scope and import of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act in its decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the significance of Section 11A, which gives the Labour Court full power to go into the evidence and satisfy itself on the points of guilt and punishment. It also highlighted the power conferred on the Tribunal to alter the punishment imposed by an employer under Section 11A.
Final Decision: The impugned award was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal, with directions to give preference for disposal within three months.
The petitioner was a workman and employed as Driver in the second respondent state owned transport corporation. The petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 01.02.1994 of the second respondent on certain charges. The charge against the petitoner was that on 27.08.1992, while he was driving the bus, route No.320, morning shift, in a place near Mandiriodai from Madurai to Kariapatti, the bus met with an accident by dashing it against the standing tree. The petitioner was give a charge memo dated 01.09.1992 for which he submitted his explanation on 23.09.1992. After conducting an enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
2. The petitioner has raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Conciliation Officer could not bring about an amicable resolution of the disputes, hence, a failure report was made. On the strength of the failure report, a claim statement was filed before the labour court on 04.07.1994. The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D. No. 166 of 1994 and issued notice to the second respondent. The second respondent also filed a counter statement dated Nil 1996 resisting the claim made by the workman.
3. Before the Labour Court, on the side of the petitioner, six documents were marked as Exs. W1 to W6. On the side of the management, Exs. M1 to M14 were filed. Before the labour court, the validity of enquiry conducted against the petitioner was considered as a preliminary issue. The labour Court, by an order dated 05.05.1999 held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the matter was posted for further proceedings. There was a change in the office of the first respondent and the labour court Judge, who later took charge, dealt with the dispute and passed the impugned award on 22.12.1999. In Para No.7 of the impugned award, the following findings were decided.
"7.It is well decided principle of law that once a competent authority had given a finding that the domestic enquiry about the charge was conducted properly, the burden of proving the fact that the punishment given, namely, termination of the petitioner in this case, is proper and in accordance with the provisions of law will not rest on the shoulders of the respondent. But any how, under Sec. 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, at this stage, it is for the Court to decide whether the punishment is proportionate to the proved misconduct laid down against the petitioner in the charges. As quoted above this Court already given a finding that the findings of the enquiry officer based on the domestic enquiry was not perverse. Therefore, I am of opinion that this Court need not give further finding regarding the perversity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer or Management.
4. It is rather unfortunate that the labour court did not keep in mind the true import of Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act. After perusing the order passed by his predecessor stating that the findings of the enquiry officer was not perverse, the labour court proceeded to deal with the issue on the proportionality of the punishment. After considering Standing Order 17, including the previous misconduct of the petitioner, the labour Court held that it cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment by exercise of its powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, thus saying, the impugned award came to be passed on 22.12.1999. It is this award which is under challenge in this writ petition.
5. The writ petition was admitted on 14.09.2000. On notice from this Court, the second respondent filed a counter affidavit on 15.03.2008 justifying the award passed by the labour Court.
6. The only question arise for consideration is whether the labour Court kept in mind the true scope and import of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act at the time of passing the impugned award.
7. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be i
