The main legal point established is that the employer's loss of confidence in the workman, proved misconduct, and the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act are crucial factors in determining the appropriate remedy.

ORDER :

Prabha Sridevan, J.—The second respondent was issued two charge-sheets for following misconducts:

(1) Submission of false claim for payment (Rule 27.100 of Standing Orders)

(2) Wilful suppression of any material and false declaration given or information furnished in connection with his appointment (Rule 27.102 of Standing Orders) 1

This charge-sheet was, dated July 14, 1973. The second charge-sheet, dated April 5, 1986. This relates to following charges:

(1) Interference with machine not connected with work (Rule 27.34 of Standing Orders)

(2) Fraud or dishonesty in connection with plant's business (Rule 27.45 of Standing Orders)

(3) Gross negligence or neglect of work (Rule 27.50 of Standing Orders).

An enquiry was conducted and at the conclusion, it was found that the charges under charge-sheet No. 1 were proved. As regards charge-sheet No. 2, these charges were also held to be proved and therefore, he was dismissed from service.

2. In respect of the acts of misconduct set out in the first charge the Labour Court held that there was no error in the conclusion of the enquiry officer. As regards the acts of misconduct in the second charge-sheet, the Labour Court held that the first two charges 3 have not been proved, but regarding the third the conclusion of the enquiry officer is correct. After holding thus, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that removal from service was a very harsh punishment and the very fact that respondent was without work for three years from the date of termination till the award was sufficient punishment and ordered reinstatement without continuity of service and back wages. Against this, the employer has filed the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made a wrong claim with regard to medical reimbursement by declaring his brother's wife and brother's daughter as his wife and daughter. In the details furnished by him in the attestation form which is marked as Exhibits (PE 4), dated February 7, 1983, he had not given the name of his brother Durairaj while giving the names of his other brothers. It is wife and daughter of this brother who were referred to as the respondent's wife and daughter while claiming medical reimbursement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Labour Court had concluded that the marriage had not been proved and there was no proof of adoption of the brother's daughter then there is false declaration or material suppression of fact by the respondent in which case there was no justification for the Labour Court to exercise its discretion u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. As regards other charges, which related to under weighing the load transported in a lorry as against the actual weight of 9160 Kgs. the weight certified by the respondent was 8020 Kgs. The goods loaded on to the truck was kraft interleaving scrap paper. Though the respondent was not found to be guilty of fraud or deliberate connivance of the lorry owner it was found that he had been atleast negligent in allowing this error to creep in the weighment certificate. When the Labour Court had also confirmed the finding of negligence interference was unjustified.

5. Several decisions were cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that there cannot be any misplaced sympathy when the charge is one of dishonesty or gross negligence and when the employer has lost his confidence in the workman.

(1) In The Management of the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. The Industrial Tribunal, Madras-104, and another, (1999) 1 CTC 757 the clerk was dismissed on proved misconduct and the Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 15 per cent of back wages. This Court set aside the order of the Tribunal on the ground that it is not too much to ask for any employer to accept his workman to maintain minimum standard of integrity and though in cases justice may be required to be rendered with mercy that itself howe