The Labour Court holds the authority to modify disciplinary punishments, especially when considering mitigating factors such as long service and employee conduct, ensuring just outcomes in disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT :

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

The instant Writ Appeal has been filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2023, confirming the order of the Tribunal imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement.

2.The brief facts which are necessary for the effective disposal of this appeal is that, the appellant herein was the petitioner before writ Court (hereinafter called as Management). The 2^nd respondent/Labour Union is the petitioner before writ Court, who espoused the cause of the workmen one Mr.Manoharan (hereinafter called as employee). The employee joined in the respondent Bank (employer) as a Sub-Staff during 1980. After a period of 14 years, he was promoted as clerk. In the course of his employment, he was posted as Single Window Operator/Cashier at Red Hills Branch, during 2005. While he was serving there, he was served with a charge memorandum dated 09.12.2009, by and in which, he was charged for mis-appropriation of a sum of Rs.3,500/- on 12.06.2009, and a sum of Rs.13,000/- on 19.06.2008. Subsequently an enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry, the employee admitted his guilt. Based upon his admission, the employee was found guilty. After the receipt of the enquiry report, and after complying due procedure, the employee was dismissed from service vide order dated 06.08.2010.

3.After that, the 2^nd respondent union raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai. The Tribunal after having gone through the oral and documentary evidence, has concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. However, modified the punishment of dismissal, to compulsory retirement. Aggrieved with such modification of punishment, the Management filed a writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge confirmed the order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Writ Appeal has been filed.

4.We have heard Mr.Anand Gopalan, for Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co., learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the Management would vehemently submit that, the Labour Court having concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, it ought not have interfered with the punishment, as the imposition of punishment is an administrative function and would come within their exclusive domain. It is his further submission that the charge of misappropriation has been proved, and such misappropriation had to be dealt with higher degree of sensitivity, where the public at large had reposed great faith in the banking institution. To buttress his submission he relied upon the following judgments:- (i)Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co- operative Wholedale Stores Ltd.,) reported in (2000) 7 SCC 517 ; (ii) State Bank of India and Another Vs. Bela Bagchi and Others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 435; (iii) State Bank of India Vs.Chaman Lal reported in 2008 SCC Online Del 736; (iv) Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another Vs. Munna Lal Jain reported in (2005) 10 SCC 84 ; (v) LIC of India Vs. R.Dhandapani reported in (2006) 13 SCC 613; (vi) Disciplinary Authority-Cum-Regional Manager Vs.Nikunja Bihari Patnaik reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 ; (vii) Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd., Vs.A.Unnikrishnan reported in (2006) 13 SCC 619

6.Contending contra, Mr.Balan Haridas would submit that, though the imposition of punishment would come within the administrative domain and had got discretion to impose punishment, if the Labour Court found any disproportionality of punishment, shocking it's conscience, then the Tribunal has power to interfere with the punishment under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial