The court upheld the Labour Court's finding of charges being proved but deemed dismissal disproportionate, increasing compensation to Rs.3,25,000 based on the workman's long service.

ORDER :

1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 30.07.2007 made in I.D.No. 279 of 1996.

2. By the said award, while considering the claim petition filed by the workman, the Labour Court held that the charges against the workmen were proved. However, it found that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate. Therefore, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the Court ordered the payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the workman is before the Court.

3. The brief factual background in which the claim petition arises is that the workman was employed as an operator in the respondent company. While so, based on a complaint of abusing a superior in a foul language, the workman was placed under suspension on 12.12.1992. Subsequently, on 27.03.1992, a charge memorandum was issued, alleging misconduct. It is claimed that on 12.02.1992, when the workman failed to report for duty on time and arrived at about 1:15 PM, Mr. Ravichandran, who was in charge of the attendance register directed the workman to contact Mr.Chandran regarding the attendance register. The workman allegedly abused him in foul language and physically assaulted him. Following this charge, a domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately, an order of dismissal from service was passed on 27.01.1993. The workman raised a dispute. The matter was not resolved in conciliation. Thereafter, the claim petition was taken on file as I.D.No. 279 of 1996.

4. It is the case of the workman that the employees were allowed a grace time of ten minutes to enter the factory and it is only Mr.Ravichandran who wrongly shouted at the workman. He also claimed that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, as the management did not examine Mr.Varadhan, the Security Guard, as a witness. Therefore, the workman prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and benefits.

5. The management resisted the claim through a counter statement. They reiterated the charge against the workman. It is their contention that the domestic enquiry commenced on 10.09.1992 and due proceedings were conducted and five witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked. The workman fully participated and availed the opportunity in the enquiry and after appraising the evidence on record, the workman was imposed with the punishment. Since the charge relates to abusing in filthy language and assaulting the superior, the punishment cannot be termed as disproportionate.

6. On the strength of the said pleading, the Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry. In the enquiry, no oral evidence was let in and on behalf of the workman, Ex.W1 to W5 were marked and on behalf of the management Ex.M1 to M20 were marked. The labour Court thereafter considered the issue. The Labour Court considered the fact that as a preliminary issue, it was already decided that the domestic enquiry as against the workman was fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court considered the charges on merits. The Labour Court found that there is evidence on record with reference to the proof of charges. However, the Labour Court considered the totality of the circumstances, nature and background of the workman and considered his previous services from 1973 and in the overall context held that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate and held that interest of justice would be met if appropriate relief of compensation is awarded to the workman. After holding so, it granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman. Aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed.

7. The workman is present. He has made written submissions and also argued orally. He presented some other documents which were in his possession as well. His specific contention is that the relevant witnesses were not at all examined and that he was victimised by the management. He claims that he never indulged in such erroneous behaviour. It is all stage managed by the manage