The court emphasized the importance of proportionate punishment in disciplinary proceedings, considering the nature of the misconduct and the employee's reinstatement without backwages as adequate punishment.

ORDER :

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in I.D.No.576 of 1992 dated 14.7.1994. The Management is the writ petitioner.

2. According to the management, the second respondent herein, the employee indulged in riotous and violent behaviour on 30.9.1991 at about 7.15 a.m. before the gate of the Mill. The second respondent and two other workers had beaten the co-workers and caused injuries. While the second respondent and two other workers belong to C.I.T.U., Velu belongs to D.M.K.Union. There appears to have been some misunderstanding between the members belonging to the said Unions which had resulted in the alleged violation on the part of the second respondent. This resulted in the management issuing charge-memo and suspension order to the second respondent on 3.10.1991. An explanation was submitted on 11.10.1991 which was found to be unsatisfactory to the management. An enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer held that all the charges were proved against the second respondent. A second show-cause notice was issued to the second respondent on 22.11.1991 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. However, the second respondent did not submit any explanation and hence the management terminated the services of the petitioner. According to the management, there was overwhelming evidence to substantiate violent and riotous behaviour on the part of the second respondent. However, the Labour Court while entertaining the Industrial Dispute as raised by the second respondent, came to the conclusion that there was no acceptable evidence to show that the second respondent had violently behaved with the said Velu and that considering that the said Velu himself having withdrawn the complaint, the charges have to be held as not proved; with the result, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent. Hence, the above writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/management contends that there was full-fledged enquiry and after due enquiry the second respondent was found guilty. The only circumstance of the complainant Velu having chosen to withdraw the complaint, cannot lead to presumption that the charges against the second respondent had not been proved. The observations of the Labour Court as regards the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer as regards the merits of the evidence and the conclusions arrived by him, were perverse. Learned counsel would further submit that riotous and violent behaviour was a serious misconduct and punishment of dismissal from service was not in excess or disproportionate. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in SOUTH INDIA SUGARS LTD. v. FIRST ADDL. LABOUR COURT, MADRAS,(1989) II L.L.J. 1044 .

4. Ms.Anna Mathew appearing for the second respondent would however, contend that there was absolutely no perversity in the findings rendered by the Labour Court and therefore no interference was warranted. The Labour Court was justified in taking into account the withdrawal of the complaint by the said Velu and there being no further direct evidence to implicate the second respondent, the findings rendered by the Labour Court are justified. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AGNANI v. BADRI DAS & ORS. (1963) I L.L.J. 684 in support of the contention that in order to justify issue a writ of certiorari, it would be proper for the Court to interfere only if there was error of law which would justify interference. The writ court cannot assume the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court while issuing writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the second respondent further contends that the misconduct as projected against the second respondent, was not an enumerated misconduct under the Standing Orders and hence the charges themselves were not entertainable. In support of this submission learned