Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to procedural fairness; courts cannot reappraise evidence or interfere unless findings are perverse or disproportionate.

ORDER :

M.Dhandapani, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in and by which the dismissal of the workman was confirmed, but a lumpsum compensation was awarded, while the Management had assailed the order of lumpsum compensation, the workman has assailed the dismissal from service by filing the respective writ petitions.

2. The workman joined the service of the Management on 18.2.2010 and had enrolled himself to be a member of the Union. On and from 20.12.2013, the workers went on strike for nearly four months and the workers resumed work on 23.4.2014 upon intervention of the Labour Department. Thereafter, the persons, who were instrumental in the strike were proceeded with departmentally. Thereafter, by order dated 25.9.2014, the workman was suspended and a charge memo dated 26.9.2014 was issued alleging that on 23.9.2014, when the workman was on duty, he had sabotaged the conveyor belt was damaged due to the act of the workman, which was wantonly done. The workman submitted his explanation dated 9.10.2014 and not being satisfied, domestic enquiry was conducted. After affording opportunity and upon inspection of the work spot, the enquiry officer concluded his enquiry on 21.02.2015 and submitted his report holding the charges proved. The Management, thereafter, issued second show cause notice on the workman by providing a copy of the enquiry report on 27.4.2015 to which the workman submitted his explanation on 1.5.2015. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered, punishment of dismissal from service was proposed vide communication dated 7.5.2015, to which the workman submitted his reply dated 9.5.2015. Being not satisfied, the Management dismissed the workman from service vide order dated 13.5.2015 and filed approval petition before the appropriate authority seeking approval for the dismissal of the workman by submitting a cheque towards one month’s salary.

3. Against the order of dismissal, the workman raised an industrial dispute u/s 2A (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 18.11.2016 by claiming the dismissal to be an act of victimization and unfair labour practice and also contending that the domestic enquiry was not properly considered, which was taken up in I.D. No.708/2018.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the workman, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Exs.W-1 to W-16. On the side of the Management, one witness was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.M-1 to M-50 were marked. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence while concluded that the misconduct of the workman had been proved, however, held that the dismissal of the workman from service is not proportionate as the cost of the damage could have been recovered from the workman. Holding so, the Tribunal, while confirming the order of dismissal of the workman, directed the payment of a compensation in a sum of Rs.1 Lakh to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits, in the interests of the workman and the Management. Aggrieved by the said award, the workman and the Management have filed the respective writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Management submitted that when the Tribunal has found that the misconduct of the workman stood proved through oral and documentary evidence and that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry, the Tribunal ought to have confirmed the dismissal by allowing the approval petition and dismissing the dispute. However, erroneously the Tribunal had ordered compensation to the workman, which is nothing but an encomium showered on the workman to doing an act, which had caused loss to the Management. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that when the Tribunal had come to the unassailable conclusion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate, the Tribunal ought to have reinstated the workman b